New York Scaffold Law Reform Push Targets Construction Costs as Albany Bills Stall

New York lawmakers face renewed pressure to reform the state’s Scaffold Law as construction companies, housing developers and local governments challenge its impact on insurance costs. The principal repeal proposals remain in legislative committees without final passage, leaving a dispute over construction expenses and worker protections unresolved.

Enacted in 1885, Labor Law Section 240 establishes strict liability protections involving elevation-related construction injuries. Reform supporters argue that its application increases insurance premiums and makes housing and infrastructure projects more expensive.

Organized labor and the New York State Trial Lawyers Association oppose weakening those protections, arguing that strict liability encourages contractors and property owners to maintain safer construction sites. The dispute has produced competing proposals for repeal, targeted exemptions and greater insurance transparency.

Albany Reform Bills Remain Stalled

The 2025-2026 legislative session includes several proposals addressing New York’s construction liability framework. The principal measures remain introduced or referred to committee, with no enactment reported.

Assembly Bill A9633, identified in legislative records as sponsored by Assemblymember Matthew Molitor, proposes repealing Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241. The measure remains in the Assembly Labor Committee.

Other proposals pursue narrower changes:

• Assembly Bill A9128: Would replace absolute liability with comparative negligence for qualifying construction injuries in Nassau and Suffolk counties.

• Assembly Bill A2303: Would exempt certain agricultural and residential properties from specified Scaffold Law requirements.

• Senate Bill S8200: Proposes additional insurance reporting requirements through the Construction Insurance Transparency Act.

• Assembly Bill A5811: Serves as the Assembly companion to the proposed insurance transparency legislation.

The proposals offer legislators different approaches to the dispute. Repeal would remove specified statutory protections, while narrower exemptions would limit their application to particular properties or jurisdictions.

Under the existing framework, comparative negligence generally cannot reduce damages when a violation of Section 240(1) causes a qualifying elevation-related injury. Property owners and general contractors may therefore face liability even without direct supervision of the work.

Insurance Transparency Offers Alternative Reform

The Construction Insurance Transparency Act, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Jessica Scarcella-Spanton, would require insurers providing Scaffold Law liability coverage to disclose detailed closed-claim loss and underwriting information to the New York State Department of Financial Services.

The legislation addresses an important uncertainty in the financial argument: the extent to which insurance premiums reflect actual claims experience, underwriting practices and the liability rules established by state law.

Supporters of additional disclosure seek more detailed evidence about the costs associated with construction injury claims. Such information could help lawmakers assess whether current insurance pricing reflects the risks cited by insurers.

Unlike the repeal proposals, the transparency measure would not directly replace absolute liability with comparative negligence.

Its proposed regulatory effect concerns the information insurers provide to state authorities rather than the allocation of legal responsibility following a workplace injury.

Reform Coalition Cites Public Costs

The Scaffold Law Reform Coalition estimates that New York’s liability framework contributes approximately $785 million annually to public expenditures through elevated general liability insurance costs.

That figure represents the coalition’s estimate rather than an independently established measure of statewide savings that would necessarily follow reform.

The coalition argues that insurance expenses divert public funds from construction projects, schools and infrastructure improvements.

For the New York City School Construction Authority, reform advocates cite approximately $240 million in liability insurance expenses during a single fiscal cycle.

They compare that amount with the estimated expense of constructing eight to ten primary schools under a three-year capital program.

The comparison illustrates the coalition’s argument about competing public spending priorities. It does not establish that eliminating the law would automatically free enough funding to construct those schools.

Reform advocates also estimate that upstate school boards incur approximately $200 million annually in supplemental insurance premiums.

Together, the figures underpin the campaign’s argument that the financial consequences extend beyond private developers to taxpayers and publicly funded construction.

Infrastructure Projects Face Liability Costs

The reform coalition also identifies major transportation projects as examples of how construction insurance expenses can affect capital budgets.

For the Gateway Program Hudson River Tunnel project, estimates cited in the reform debate place liability-related surcharges between $180 million and $300 million.

The Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge reconstruction has been associated with estimated statutory liability costs ranging from $200 million to $400 million.

These estimates represent projected or attributed costs, not guaranteed reductions in spending if lawmakers amend Section 240.

Construction industry advocates argue that insurers face particular underwriting difficulties in New York, affecting the availability and pricing of primary and excess liability coverage.

Industry analyses describe restrictions on coverage, exclusionary policy provisions and premiums substantially higher than those encountered in neighboring states such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

For large public projects, advocates argue that elevated premiums can increase costs before construction begins, adding pressure to budgets already committed to materials, labor and engineering.

Housing Developers Question Project Feasibility

Housing developers and real estate stakeholders argue that New York’s liability rules increase the cost of residential construction by raising insurance expenses.

Their concerns extend to affordable housing developments, where additional costs can affect whether projects remain financially feasible.

Reform advocates contend that a comparative negligence framework could reduce insurance exposure for owners and contractors, potentially lowering the expense of constructing new homes.

However, the economic estimates presented in the reform campaign do not establish a verified statewide insurance cost per apartment or quantify how many additional housing units would become feasible after reform.

The $785 million public-cost estimate therefore cannot be treated as a direct measure of potential housing savings.

Whether statutory changes would reduce residential development expenses would depend partly on how insurers adjusted premiums and how developers incorporated any savings into project financing.

For the real estate industry, the central issue is the extent to which owners and contractors should bear financial responsibility for qualifying injuries when other parties may also have contributed to an accident.

Labor Unions Defend Worker Protections

Organized labor unions and the New York State Trial Lawyers Association maintain that the Scaffold Law provides essential protections for workers exposed to falls and falling objects.

Their position is that the possibility of substantial liability encourages property owners and contractors to provide appropriate equipment and maintain safer working conditions.

Labor advocates oppose reforms that would permit an injured worker’s conduct to reduce compensation in circumstances currently governed by absolute liability.

They argue that shifting more financial responsibility toward workers could weaken incentives for employers and contractors to prevent elevation-related accidents.

Reform supporters dispute whether the current liability standard necessarily produces safer construction sites.

They cite research associated with the RAND Institute for Civil Justice estimating an association between New York’s liability rules and approximately 670 additional nonfatal construction injuries annually.

That estimate does not, by itself, establish that the statute caused those injuries or that changing the law would prevent them.

The competing arguments leave lawmakers assessing two distinct questions: the financial consequences of the liability framework and its effect on construction worker safety.

Buildings Department Position Remains Unclear

The New York City Department of Buildings oversees construction safety requirements within its jurisdiction, but no specific statement from its leadership supporting or opposing the pending Scaffold Law reforms has been established.

The department’s regulatory responsibilities are distinct from the state legislature’s authority to amend construction liability law.

Changes to Section 240 would affect the legal treatment of qualifying injury claims rather than automatically eliminate existing requirements governing construction safety equipment and worksite practices.

Any formal department position on reform would therefore be relevant to understanding how city construction regulators view the proposed balance between financial liability and worker protection.

Federal Lawmakers Seek Separate Reform

At the federal level, Representative Nick Langworthy introduced H.R. 3548, the Infrastructure Expansion Act, with Representatives Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney identified among its supporters.

The proposed Infrastructure Expansion Act would apply a comparative negligence standard to qualifying New York infrastructure projects receiving federal financial assistance.

Its supporters estimate that the proposed change could reduce construction budgets by 5% to 10%, potentially producing more than $2 billion in taxpayer savings over ten years.

Those figures are projections advanced by proponents. They do not represent savings already realized or independently guaranteed outcomes.

The federal approach seeks to address the liability issue through requirements affecting federally supported projects rather than waiting for the New York Legislature to enact a statewide amendment.

Such legislation could also raise constitutional questions about federal spending authority, state sovereignty and the preemption of state tort law.

Any federal change would require congressional approval and could face subsequent legal challenges.

County Governments Support Legislative Changes

The reform campaign has also gained support among county governments.

More than half of New York’s 62 counties have adopted resolutions seeking repeal or amendment of Section 240.

County governments supporting changes cite the burden of liability insurance costs on municipal roads, public facilities and other capital projects.

The resolutions demonstrate that the reform campaign has secured formal support from county governments across New York.

Their involvement broadens the dispute beyond private residential construction and major transportation projects to the costs borne by local governments.

Legislative Committees Face Next Decisions

The next substantive decisions rest with legislative committees considering repeal, exemptions and insurance disclosure requirements.

Committees handling the state proposals would need to advance legislation before the Assembly or Senate could consider the relevant measures for passage. No completed legislative approval has been established for the principal reforms.

The insurance transparency proposal offers lawmakers a route to gather additional claims and underwriting information without immediately changing liability protections.

Meanwhile, the federal Infrastructure Expansion Act remains a separate potential route for applying comparative negligence to qualifying federally assisted infrastructure work.

The outcomes would affect different groups in different ways: property owners and contractors seeking lower insurance exposure, public agencies managing construction budgets, insurers underwriting injury risks and workers relying on existing legal protections.