Columns

This article provides information on various types of remedies which may be available during arbitration. While it is impossible to fully address all remedies, the intent is to offer an overview of remedies available to advocates, that allows them to request certain remedies be awarded, and to arbitrators for consideration after making decisions on the merits of a case. 

Background

This article provides information on various types of remedies which may be available during arbitration. While it is impossible to fully address all remedies, the intent is to offer an overview of remedies available to advocates, that allows them to request certain remedies be awarded, and to arbitrators for consideration after making decisions on the merits of a case. 

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in which parties submit their case to a neutral third party known as an arbitrator. The arbitrator renders a decision that resolves the dispute outside of court. The arbitrator’s authority is granted by the parties and is typically governed by contract or applicable law. 

The arbitration process is intended to be expeditious, efficient, inexpensive, and streamlined. Arbitrators have broad authority, and final awards are usually binding.

A remedy is a means by which an arbitrator enforces a right, compensates for a harm, or prevents further wrongdoing. A remedy provides relief to a party who has suffered a wrong. The purpose of the remedy is to restore the injured party to its rightful position.  

Arbitrators may fashion creative and customized remedies based on the outcome of an arbitration. While arbitrators have broad authority, there may be provisions in a contract or legal tenets that narrow the scope of their authority in fashioning remedies. 
Ultimately, remedies imposed by arbitrators should be fashioned to ensure outcomes are fair, enforceable, and consistent with legal standards.

During arbitration, the advocates are expected to clearly request and justify the remedies they seek. They must endeavor to convince the arbitrator through evidence, exhibits, and testimony of the appropriate remedies to be assigned. Advocates should utilize flexibility in crafting and requesting remedies to coincide with specific situations and to compensate for harm or violations.

Arbitrator Authority

When parties invoke arbitration, it is generally pursuant to an arbitration agreement, court order, or contract. Whatever the source, the instrument grants the arbitrators’ authority. Arbitrations typically have a request for remedial action, or a statement of the remedy being pursued. Arbitrators are vested with the power to render the ultimate decision. 

Sometimes, Arbitrators’ authority is restricted by existing limitations on remedies. For instance, arbitrators may be subject to specific terms in an arbitration agreement. Or, statutory caps may set maximum amounts on damages that may be awarded, or jurisdictional restrictions may exist.

It is also important to recognize that remedial frameworks may vary depending on the venue where they were invoked. Those venues may be in the commercial, construction, employment, labor, or international arenas, to name a few, and may involve public or private disputes. Some institutions, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), have established arbitration procedures.  

In awarding remedies, arbitrators may differ. Some arbitrators restrict remedies to what the parties request.  Others deviate from the requested remedies and resort to their own brand of justice, which is often risky. The concern is that arbitrators do not always recognize the potentially far-reaching ramifications of delving into unaddressed areas to manufacture remedies, and the manufactured remedial package was not requested.   

Below is a summary of various types of remedies. While examples are provided to further explicate the remedies, it is noteworthy that the appropriateness of various remedies varies across venues and legal practice areas. 

Monetary Damages and Equitable Relief

Monetary damages are the most common type of remedial relief. They are often referred to as “make-whole” remedies and are frequently awarded in employment and commercial cases, among others. 

Monetary damages are awarded to compensate for losses incurred and are based on actual damages suffered. Examples of monetary damages are back pay and payment for missed overtime. In a make-whole award, a wronged employee may also receive other remedies that may exceed monetary payments and range from a transfer, a promotion, training, a different job, a different shift, counseling, or company assets. For example, in a sexual harassment case where the allegations were proven to be false, the alleged harasser’s remedial package included his return to work, restoration of all lost benefits, back pay, pay for missed overtime, and full seniority rights. In that case, he was also reinstated to his former job, and his record was cleared. 

Equitable Relief is a non-monetary remedy requiring a party to perform certain acts or to refrain from acting when money damages may be inadequate in achieving fairness. Two primary forms of equitable remedies are specific performance and injunctive relief.

A specific performance remedy compels a party to perform a certain act or carry out obligations, particularly in situations where monetary damages are insufficient. For example, an arbitrator’s remedy award may require the removal of a bank of 100 trees and all debris pursuant to a clear contract term. 

Injunctions are awarded as remedies to stop or enjoin certain activities.  Injunctive relief can be either temporary or permanent. For example, an arbitrator may enjoin a party from advertising and selling artwork where ownership is disputed. 

Arbitrators can also cancel or rescind contracts or provisions therein and place the parties back in their pre-contract positions. This remedy is referred to as rescission. The arbitrator may require not only the cancellation of the contract but also the return of all payments made by the parties. 

Other Considerations

Punitive damages are viewed as remedies to punish the aggressor. Punitive damages typically exceed payment for the wrong committed. Punitive damages are typically frowned upon in the labor arena because the goal is to place the aggrieved party back in the position they would have been in. Other venues are more receptive to punitive damages. Arbitrators have awarded punitive damages where a contract has provided clear and express authority to do so, or where significant bad faith is proven, or where the accused knowingly or repeatedly committed bad acts. 

Consequential damages have been the subject of debate in recent years. Consequential damages do not necessarily represent “direct” wrongs or injuries. Rather, they are damages suffered as an “indirect” result of a wrong. For example, a wronged employee may complain that, after his discharge, his new job’s out-of-state travel requirements forced his spouse to quit her job, resulting in a significant loss of family income. Another example was when a company lost five (5) essential customers after non-conforming goods required time-consuming re-fabrication. To recover consequential damages, a party must establish that a causal relationship existed between the breach and the benefit that was lost. In addition, the damages must flow naturally from the breach. The connection between the two events typically engenders much debate. If the loss is one that a party was likely to experience notwithstanding, then remedies for consequential damages are not recoverable.  

Procedural violations may also justify remedial attention. Examples of procedural violations in the employment arena include failures to comply with due process obligations or other rules. 

Although the failure to comply may not always overcome the employee’s violation, for example, the discharge, some arbitrators may award remedies such as compensation between the time of the violation and the arbitration hearing, or between the violation and the removal action, or from the time of management’s procedural violation. 

Interest is usually not awarded as a remedy unless express laws or contract provisions provide for it. Federal agencies are more inclined to provide for the payment of interest on an assigned remedy. In many forums, arbitrators do not include interest unless a party has requested it. This is not the case in arenas such as personal injury or auto negligence cases.  The growing trend is for parties to specifically request that interest be included with an arbitration award. 

Parties sometimes request that litigation costs and attorney fees be awarded as a portion of the remedy. Except in venues where costs and attorney fees are governed by contract or law, costs for the actual litigation or hearing are typically split between the parties unless mutually agreed otherwise. 

Interim awards, even if non-monetary, may be granted prior to a final award being issued. Interim awards may be granted to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information. They may also be granted to “stop the bleeding” until a final award is issued, such as in the case of a manufacturing part used to build automobiles, even though the arbitration involves patent issues. 

Summary

In addressing remedies in arbitration, it is important for arbitrators and advocates to understand the nature of the potential remedies, determine whether the remedies are applicable and justifiable, and whether they are governed by applicable law or contract to protect both the clients’ rights and the arbitration process.  

References: Fed. Arb. Act, U.S. Code, Title 9; AAA Arbitration Rules, JAMS Arbitration Rules, Remedies in Arbitration, Hill & Sinicropi.

Earlene Baggett-Hayes is a senior member of Professional Resolution Experts of Michigan (PREMI), a premier group of seasoned invitation-only arbitrators and mediators.

Somehow shouting at a robot instead of a baseball umpire  is not as satisfying as the insults I enjoyed shouting while sitting in the bleachers where the air is thin.

Somehow shouting at a robot instead of a baseball umpire  is not as satisfying as the insults I enjoyed shouting while sitting in the bleachers where the air is thin.

I knew the umpire was as blind as a bat even though I was 500 feet from home plate while he was right behind the batter.

But now I will have to vent my good-natured anger at a robot -- yes, a robot -- which the baseball major leagues will begin using this season to keep umpires honest. It is called the Automated Ball-Strike System (ABS).

And the robot doesn’t even have the courage to stand behind the batter, but is hidden in technology around the stadium.

As I understand it, three players -- the batter, pitcher and catcher -- can now ask for an instant replay to challenge calls of strikes and balls by umpires. The players do this by tapping their helmets but not by stomping their feet, kicking dirt, or calling umpires names I can’t print in this column.

Once a challenge is made, videos -- a Hawk-eye camera system which captured the pitches with cameras around the stadium -- will be replayed and shown, via animation, on the scoreboard and broadcast booths.

If I don’t like the decision, I guess I can scream at the scoreboard: “Who the hell programmed you?” Or: “Did your USB cord become entangled with the mouse?” Or: “Your motherboard obviously lost all memory.”

True, that’s enticing, but not as satisfactory as all the names I called umpires through the years, especially the ones who called the games when I played in neighborhood softball leagues.

I remember the time…nope, can’t tell that one. But it was a good one.  The cops agreed with me.

The system has been tested in the minor leagues and the turnover rate is pretty high. One report says that in spring training this year, 53 percent of 1,844 challenges were successful.

That made me feel good because it “proves” I was right more than 50 percent of the time in the bleachers. Who needs robots?

If a team wins a challenge, it can keep challenging. As soon as a team loses two challenges, it won't have the ability to challenge again.

The key statistic fed into computers is a player’s height. They can crouch all they want to, but it won’t make any difference. The computers know what the players are doing. Umpires do not have to order batters to stand up straight.

But it does create a new problem now suffered by computers in businesses: Hacking. I can envision teams hiring “designated hackers” to be used in serious situations. Let’s say it is the seventh game of a World Series, in the bottom of the ninth and the batter is facing a 3-2 count with the bases loaded.

I can hear managers in both dugouts ask, “Where’s the hacker?  He’s up.” And I can see the umpires smile.

It also opens the doors to other questionable innovations, like programming computers to decode signals from third base coaches or steal signs from catchers to pitchers, a responsibility usually assigned to shortstops and second basemen.

The possibilities are endless and could put the 1951 baseball scandal involving the Giants and Dodgers to shame. Baseball lore has it that Giants Manager Leo Durocher had a system of stealing a catcher’s sign and had the Dodgers’ choice delivered to his batter, Bobby Thomson, who hit the “shot heard ‘round the world,” giving the Giants the pennant. It was, arguably, the most famous home run in baseball history.

No computers were involved.

Believer or not, one umpire, Bill Miller, actually rooted for the robot when he was challenged in a game between the Giants and Guardians in Scottsdale, Arizona. He called a ball on a batter who had a 0-2 count. On an open mic, Miller was heard saying, “Please be a strike,” meaning the batter would be out. (The robot confirmed Miller’s call.)

But no one could understand why Miller wanted to be wrong.  Some speculated it was hot and he wanted to end the game as quickly as possible because maybe he had a hot date.

But a colleague of his, Richie Garcia, doesn’t like the new system at all, complaining that umpires would be embarrassed in front of thousands by some “computer geek who doesn’t know anything about baseball.”

As a fan, I don’t know what to do. Keeping quiet in the bleachers does not sound appealing to me.  I’m confident the guy next to me, the one I have argued with for years, probably feels the same way.

What if the computer I decide to cuss out for what I believe is a bad decision is armed with a long-range laser? What if it calls a computer buddy and asks it to jam my printer? 

I am also curious what baseball purists of all the yesterdays would think of this development. We could ask a neutral computer.

I guess the best thing to do is praise Hawk-eye for calling a good game and invite it out for a beer.

May was Mental Health Awareness Month, a campaign aiming to raise awareness about mental health, fight stigma, educate the public, and advocate for policies that prioritize mental health. It also encourages open and honest conversations about mental health. 

By normalizing these conversations, we move toward empathy and understanding rather than stigma and judgment. These efforts help create an environment in which people feel more confident seeking help and support for their mental health needs. 

In the legal profession, these conversations carry particular significance. Research conducted by the American Bar Association and the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation drew attention to the mental health challenges facing lawyers. The 2016 study found that roughly 1 in 3 attorneys struggle with problems related to alcohol use, more than a quarter experience symptoms of depression, and nearly 20% report symptoms of anxiety. These findings have contributed to a growing conversation about lawyer well-being and the need to address mental health within our profession. 

Our Shared Experience 

There is a shared understanding among those who practice law. We understand the pressure of deadlines, the demands of billable hours, and the weight of decisions that affect other people’s lives. The profession often asks us to be sharp, composed, and decisive, even when we may not feel up to the task. That shared understanding can create a sense of connection. 

The nature of our profession also tends to attract individuals who are ambitious, driven, and highly self-reliant. Those traits serve our profession well, but they can also make it difficult for us to acknowledge strain or ask for help. There is an emotional and psychological toll that accompanies the role, and the pressures accumulate. Strength and composure are often valued in adversarial environments, and vulnerability can feel risky in a profession built on competition and credibility. These realities are part of why conversations about mental health in our profession matter. 

Even within these shared pressures, the experience of practicing law is not the same for everyone. We may appear in the same courtrooms and navigate the same professional demands, but each person carries their own lived experiences into that space. The shared experience of practicing law can make it easy to assume we understand one another, but the truth is that much of what shapes a colleague’s day or their capacity to carry the demands of the profession remains unseen. In many ways, we get each other. And yet, in other ways, we don’t. 

Beyond Our Shared Experience

Each of us brings our lived experience into our practice. We may carry burdens and responsibilities that others cannot see. We may be grieving a loss, facing financial strain, managing health concerns, or navigating challenges at home. Some of us are balancing the demands of the profession while caring for young children, aging parents, or sometimes both. Others may be navigating illness, loss, or struggles that remain largely invisible to the people around them. 
Those realities do not disappear simply because we are at work. 

Much of what shapes how someone shows up on a given day is not visible to those around them. We meet one another in professional roles, across conference tables, in courtrooms, and through emails, often seeing only a small part of the person in front of us. As lawyers and advocates, we have a job to do. But we are also human beings whose lives extend far beyond the roles we occupy in the practice of law. 

Try Walking in My Shoes 

Most of us have had that moment when we felt misunderstood or judged and said to ourselves, “They should try walking in my shoes.” The phrase is often an expression of frustration, but beneath it lies something deeper: a desire to be seen, heard, and understood — one of our most basic human needs. 

Depeche Mode captured this idea in the song “Walking in My Shoes.” The song suggests that if we tried walking in someone else’s shoes, we might stumble in their footsteps. Its message is simple but powerful: Before we judge another person’s struggles, we should pause and consider how little we may truly know about what they are carrying. 

At its core, the song is a plea for empathy, a reminder of how easy it is to judge another person’s struggles without fully understanding what they are experiencing. For some, empathy comes naturally. For others, it is a skill that must be intentionally cultivated. Empathy asks us to feel with someone rather than feel for them. It differs from sympathy. It requires perspective-taking, nonjudgmental listening, emotional awareness, and a willingness to communicate understanding. 

Empathy also requires vulnerability. In her book “Dare to Lead,” Brené Brown explains that empathy is not about connecting to someone’s experience but rather connecting to the emotions that underpin that experience. In truth, none of us can fully walk in another person’s shoes, but we can lean in with curiosity and compassion. There is real power in sitting with someone in their dark moments without trying to fix the problem or offer a silver lining. As the song reminds us, “Before you come to any conclusions, try walking in my shoes.” 

Walking Together 

Practicing law is only one part of our lives. We each have roles and responsibilities beyond the profession, and those experiences shape the lives we bring with us into our work. While we may share a professional role and the pressures that come with it, we do not share the same lived experiences. That is why it is possible to sit in a room full of colleagues who “get it” and still feel alone, appearing self-assured while quietly wondering whether you truly belong. 

Mental health affects all of us. Mental Health Awareness Month offers an opportunity to reflect on the realities within our profession. It reminds us to care for our own well-being, challenge the stigma that still surrounds mental health struggles, and look out for one another with greater awareness and compassion. At the same time, mental health struggles are not always visible. People may suffer quietly, and the signs may be subtle — or not apparent at all. For those who have lost someone to mental illness, it can be easy to look back and wonder whether something more should have been seen or done. Hindsight often makes things appear clearer than they ever were in the moment. 

Practicing law does not remove us from the human experience. Rather, it simply unfolds within it. Remembering that makes room for empathy and quiets our impulse to judge. While we each walk in our own shoes, we are still walking this journey together.

————————

Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association

With the adoption of MCR 2.410 by our Supreme Court, Michigan stands out as a leader in court-ordered Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) programs. ADR is now integral within the Michigan court system.

For the last twenty-five years, my legal practice has been devoted to bringing lawsuits against employers and employee benefit administrators who failed to provide my clients with the benefits they had rightly earned. 

For the last twenty-five years, my legal practice has been devoted to bringing lawsuits against employers and employee benefit administrators who failed to provide my clients with the benefits they had rightly earned. 

There is an elegant simplicity to this aspect of employment law because benefit plans work like contracts. Like a contract, an employee’s consideration is providing work for the employer. In return, the employer pays for that work, in part through non-wage compensation such as healthcare, life insurance, retirement benefits, and disability insurance. The value of these benefits to an employee and the employee’s family has been steadily growing each year. 

Litigating these disputes has led to my forming a few biases. Forgive me, but I do not have the greatest regard for human resource departments, and there are a few insurance companies that I believe are actually bad actors, not just opponents.

But lately, I have come to empathize with my would-be adversaries . . . at least a little bit.  

The world of employee benefits — or should I say this new world of benefits — is becoming increasingly complex. It is fraught with new employee expectations, and there seems to be legal peril everywhere for employers and plan managers.  Just recently, the Department of Labor (which has been beset by scandals and resignations) issued its revised enforcement priorities, which, if relied upon, may result in legal troubles down the road should a new administration come into power with different priorities.  Today’s relief from regulatory enforcement could be tomorrow’s class action lawsuit. Benefit participants, in contrast, must tailor their cases to meet the moment, but benefit plans have a decades-long horizon. 

In an employee-side litigation practice, the legal process is straightforward. An employee has a benefit plan problem. The first attempt to solve the problem is by filing a claim for benefits. If that fails, there is an internal appeal with the plan. If the problem remains unsolved, then a lawsuit is filed. Benefit litigators review existing precedents, outline their legal cases, and work to see that their clients prevail. 

In the old days, employee benefit plans only had to monitor themselves for compliance with basic Department of Labor regulations and to be mindful of unique rules in insurance and banking that applied in states where a company operated. Most plans would receive regular updates on significant developments in case law across the U.S. It was all a bit sleepy and rote. 

In 2010, that started to change, led by the massive federal law requiring that healthcare plans be brought in line with the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (“Obamacare”). That was a huge change; so huge, in fact, that the law itself contained a built-in mechanism giving plans years to adjust the implementation deadlines. Then, the regulatory authorities repeatedly extended those deadlines even further. 

Prior to this, federal regulations for employee benefit plans had been amended only a handful of times since 1975. After Obamacare, the applicable regulations and USDOL bulletins began changing with great regularity.  

Before and after the law was passed, the Tea Party erupted with intense criticism over the law, and in turn there were hundreds of attempts to change the law, eliminate it, or repeal its most controversial provisions through litigation. Obamacare today looks nothing like it did fifteen years ago. 

This sudden charged approach to what was, essentially, an employee benefits law, has led to increased plan litigation and other challenges as when the federal government tried to impose a fiduciary standard on financial advisors across all plans and into individual investors. This fiduciary duty rule has changed so many times that it is hard to keep up. It was recently struck down again by a federal court.  

Since 2025, the pace of proposed laws affecting employee benefit plans has been on fire.  Plans are suddenly being forced to grapple with some really “out there” issues.  

Consider what today’s benefit plans must now address:

1. New, unusual, and unproven medical treatments and requests for coverage based on influencers, streamers and politics. Podcasters and the current HHS Secretary regularly provide medical advice to the public in a way that is new, untested, and complicated. Suddenly, employee benefit participants are hearing about how injecting peptides can help them live longer, lose weight, and look better. Participants are being told not to vaccinate or to vaccinate themselves and their families differently. 
(Recently, the U.S. military ruled that mandatory flu vaccinations for active-duty personnel are considered “woke” and would be discontinued.) Proven cancer drugs that may have been covered by health insurance are suddenly being labeled “investigative” by the FDA. With plan participants being told to eat saturated fats, lard, heavy meat diets, and to stop eating plant-based foods and getting vaccinated, it remains to be seen what will happen for cardiac, cancer, rheumatology, and infectious disease costs over time for those plans. Plans have to keep up with this, and if all this medical advice turns out to be wrong, there will be additional pressure put on health insurers and self-funded healthcare plans to clean up the medical mess.

2. Expensive life-changing drugs are coming to market, and their arability is certain to increase rapidly with AI technology.  Today, there are potentially lifesaving and life altering genetic therapies that are being developed by doctors and scientists, but they are funded privately and access to the drugs are at the cost of millions of dollars per treatment. “60 Minutes” recently chronicled the rapid and remarkable development of life-saving gene therapies that cost millions per dosage. The takeaway from the lengthy report was that benefit plans have no idea how to deal with this and definitely have not established sufficient cost reserves. 

3. Political backlash surrounding medical treatments and coverage. The backlash against DEI programs generally, and certain medical treatments specifically, has led to complexities in the medical treatment offerings for the LGBTQ community.  This is a completely different environment than two years ago. Moreover, the DEI fights have led to massive cuts in medical research grants to American universities. So, now healthcare innovations are being outsourced to financial investment firms or the private credit markets for development on their timetables, not in our universities using grant money.  Again, how do benefit plans forecast healthcare claims over the next 20 years and will there be a backsliding in medical treatment options which, again, promises to increase care costs?

4. Political backlash surrounding the climate and retirement plan investments. States like Florida have required their retirement benefit plans to divest in investments that are marketed to help the environment and to redirect those funds to other investments, including fossil fuels. Florida actually passed a law that prohibits any type of investment that has as an objective the improvement of environment or climate. In our current political state, this may serve as a template for aggrieved plan members who object to similar investments by their own retirement plans and wish to litigate these issues.

5. Your home is now your 401k. In the retirement realm, plan administrators may have to develop rules allowing people to put their homes into their 401(k) plans. This will require harmonizing contribution limits with lending laws and reconciling ERISA’s prohibition on collection activity against a retirement plan with legal documents such as mortgages and home refinancing. 

6. Alternative investments in 401k plans. Also in the retirement plan realm, there is a push to open 401(k) plans to cryptocurrencies, hedge funds, and other alternative investments. The proposed regulation is more than 150 pages, single-spaced, and with all sorts of scenarios that add to the confusion surrounding the rules. 

7. The use of AI in administrative services contract administration for benefit plans. This is a small headache now, which promises to become a migraine soon, if it is not figured out. It is clear that many large insurers are experimenting with AI to cut down on labor costs, but it is unclear whether that complies with ERISA’s fiduciary standard.  AI generated claims management reveals itself when a claim is paid and the Explanation of Benefits forms continue to show the claim as denied. Ultimately, these types of problems find their way back to the company. 

This is a whole lot of change in a relatively short period. Plan designers have to keep up in a fast-changing world and plan administrators have to carefully monitor what is happening across the country. But empathy only goes so far. Not to worry, ERISA litigators will be there, too, watching closely to see how the plans navigate these changes.

  ——————————-

John Joseph (J.J.) Conway founder of Michigan-based J.J. Conway Law, is a national employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator representing clients in individual cases and class action lawsuits.

Scaffolding is essential on construction and renovation projects, but when something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Fires, collapses, and structural failures involving scaffolding often lead to serious injuries, major property damage, and complex insurance disputes.

Scaffolding is essential on construction and renovation projects, but when something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Fires, collapses, and structural failures involving scaffolding often lead to serious injuries, major property damage, and complex insurance disputes.

A recent large-scale construction fire in Denver—where more than 100 firefighters battled a multi-alarm blaze at an apartment project—highlights how quickly a construction-related incident can escalate into a multimillion-dollar loss affecting property owners, contractors, neighboring businesses, and insurers.

For businessowners, property owners, and policyholders in Michigan and across the United States, understanding scaffolding insurance coverage is critical. 

The question is not just what happened, but who is insured, under which policy, and for what damages.
 
Why scaffolding insurance coverage matters

Scaffolding incidents often involve multiple parties and layered insurance policies. When a loss occurs, insurers may dispute responsibility, deny coverage, or shift blame to other parties. 

 Scaffolding-related claims commonly arise from:

• Fires at construction or renovation sites

• Structural collapse or instability

• Falling tools, debris, or materials

• Damage to adjacent buildings or vehicles

• Injuries to workers, pedestrians, or residents 

In dense areas like Detroit, Chicago, or surrounding Midwest cities, a single scaffolding incident can affect an entire block—leading to evacuations, business interruption, and regulatory investigations.

 
Common insurance policies implicated in scaffolding losses 

Understanding which insurance policies may apply is the first step toward protecting your interests.

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL) 

CGL policies often serve as the primary coverage for bodily injury and property damage caused by scaffolding accidents. But coverage disputes frequently arise over:

• Whether the damage resulted from ongoing operations or completed work

• Policy exclusions related to construction defects or fire

• Additional insured status for property owners or developers

2. Builder’s Risk Insurance 

Builder’s risk policies may cover damage to the structure under construction, including losses caused by fire. Insurers may still deny claims by arguing:

• Improper installation or maintenance of scaffolding

• Violations of safety codes or project specifications

• Excluded causes of loss
 
3. Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions (E&O) 

When scaffolding design, supervision, or inspection is involved, claims may extend to engineers, architects, or project managers. These cases often hinge on whether professional judgment or a construction defect caused the loss.

 4. Excess and Umbrella Policies

Large losses frequently exceed primary policy limits. Excess and umbrella insurers may resist paying, leading to high-stakes litigation over policy language and trigger of coverage.
 
Key coverage disputes after a scaffolding incident 

Scaffolding claims often raise complex legal questions, including:

• Who qualifies as an insured or additional insured?

• Was the fire or collapse accidental or tied to an excluded peril?

• Do multiple insurers owe defense and indemnity?

• Can insurers shift responsibility through subrogation or contribution claims?

In large-scale fires like the Denver construction blaze, disputes often expand to include neighboring property owners, municipalities, and utility providers—each with separate insurance interests.
 
Practical steps after a scaffolding-related loss

If you are a property owner, contractor, or business affected by a scaffolding incident, early action is critical. Immediate steps to protect your claim include:

• Preserve contracts, insurance policies, and certificates of insurance

• Document damage with photos, videos, and expert reports

• Notify all potentially applicable insurers promptly

• Avoid recorded statements without legal guidance

• Consult counsel experienced in insurance coverage litigation

  ____________________
 
Attorney and Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. He can be reached at (248) 905-1133.