Sixty Days to Indemnity

[Music] Hello everybody we are so happy to be back this is scandals insurance uncovered i'm Teresa Gertan and i am Amy Lam and we are welcome to have you do yes yes to finally take 15 yes that's a technical issue is getting off the ground to start but now we're here and we're really excited about a new season and we have missed each other and we missed talking about these things so yes and you know i always say like things happen for a reason because we did have a topic planned guys like this is how long it took to get the technical difficulties and re-schedulings worked through the initial topic that we were going to cover was really kind of dive into residential exclusions obviously touch on New York but how they're starting to impact you know different you know all over the US they're starting to pop up and be different than what we think they are but here recently the avowade act came into play in December of 2025 it will go into effect on April 18th of this year and i think from what my understanding is it will affect pending and obviously new cases or filings i don't know the language and but Teresa is going to explain that part and kind of break it down on and kind of it's like how this is going to impact everything as far as the legal side and how these these are handled and litigated right yeah definitely i think it's i will still definitely touch on that residential issue in the future in a future episode because i think that's really interesting too and there's a lot there but yeah this came up and and i think is really timely uh and is probably going to impact a lot of people that listen to the podcast and both of our clients you know client base so yeah so let's talk about it it's it is in New York packed so this applies in New York and avowade is an acronym that stands for avoiding vexatius overuse of it pleading to delay gotta love that uh we know they they will find an acronym for anything in this industry yeah vexatius is such a such a legal word you know okay yeah i'm gonna look that up as far as the definition it's like it's like harassing or you know inappropriate that's kind of what it's it's geared at but um so basically this act and what we'll go through some like scenarios i think to help um but i see you laughing when you're cracking up about so let me make sure i stilkis right it's v-e-x-a-t-i-o-u-s yes okay the definition of vivacious vexatius vexatius is causing or tending to cause annoyance frustration or worry okay all right so our our very legitimate third party claims are annoying and worry some okay cool but there is another like law definition which kind of relates better but the general definition yeah so basically the law is in its simplest form it's putting limits on time frames for bringing certain types of claims so what's important to understand is like the structure of litigation to begin with right so you you get a lawsuit filed plaintiff versus defendant okay the plaintiff is the person that brings the suit the defendant is the person that's getting sued okay so for third party you see that would be the injured party yeah so yeah like usually the plaintiff would be the injured party so the so right the plaintiff is the injured like employee on a construction site okay the defendant is let's say the general contractor the third party action is where that defendant the general contractor brings in another player suits someone else so they're going to sue people that they think are responsible for the plaintiffs injuries to try to shift the risk over to those other parties that spread spread go well spread the love so that happens like all the time very routine when it comes to contractual indemnity the the you know figures out at some point who was actually responsible for this person's injury and they bring that party into the suit in a third party complaint and they usually are claiming contractual indemnity or common law indemnity if they don't have the right wording so under the previous way that we all did things it was very flexible when you could file those sorts of actions okay yeah that's what like at least from what I gathered like it was just kind of an understood thing like there was no strict limits or dates yeah or limitations honestly it was just you know right as you discover you you can add people and the word impeler that really that word got me it just made me giggle it's like one of those words that you it's illegal you're waiting it you're like that exactly yeah yeah it's sort of a legal term that refers to just generally bringing people into a case you know yes so yeah exactly it used to be really flexible and like basically you could bring people in almost at any time and the judge would have the ability to you know assess whether there was a problem with that like is this gonna slow things down a lot is this gonna prejudice anybody is it gonna delay you know and if not then fine let's go you know because there's this idea that if something arises from the same set of facts let's put it all in the same case that's gonna be more efficient you know so that's the old way of doing things and that's the way you know it is in most states and federal courts you know it's it's allow yeah yeah um the only thing that I want to just put a pin in because I feel like we will touch on this later this season is the differences in the evolution of additional insures and we did a whole thing on that last season guys so if you haven't listened to it go back the difference between horizon powder or caused in whole or in part by is really gonna start to hold its weight here yes you're totally right that language appears in indemnity agreements too either or arising out of her cause of whole or a part by yes so like there's all these potential it's like when a when an accident first happens right I guess I don't know what your experience if you you know talk to clients about this sort of stuff but not every client has the best process for investigating accidents you know I I think only like the top tier GC's really have this sort of the resources honestly to send someone to the site every time someone gets injured and to investigate and document it like that's the ideal but like in reality do people have the ability to do that not all the time yeah I will say that there are certain carriers out there now that for these smaller GC's where you know these third party like action over issues tend to arise more and whether especially highly sensitive or being hyper aware now especially with this happiness yeah and some of the carriers actually are provide an option to have like a site safety visit ah cool and you know shout out to us and now they actually provide those services where they'll send somebody out they'll talk to them they follow it up with a phone survey and if it's actually where it's not just like one like a one man's shop like they have several ongoing projects they'll even go to the project sites and kind of oversee a give OSHA advice advice things like that on that's cool so I yeah so I feel like for you know GC's that may have been too small to really think about it like that's a help that's a help to look at resources where it may be somewhat affordable like in some capacity you don't have to do a deep dive like you know the bigger players of the world but some type of health is great it's helpful right that's really good for preventing you know losses too right is to have a outside person come in and spot you know what's going on that could be problematic yeah and I know that there's been like lots of talks at the last few conferences we've gone to about like you know controlled access at job sites yeah you know you know like there's a service offering we have camp client like that will come out and it's actually like like you'll set up cameras they can offer you know multiple like wearables or whatever yeah like there's a there's like a QR code or something that identifies exactly who's at the job site at all times yeah that's cool like you know things like that that were just kind of the cool new idea I feel like they're gonna start getting more and more to me and integrate really into what yeah because well yeah because now it's not going to just be like oh well yeah Amy Amy's drywall was was out the job site that morning right like it's actually pinpoint you know yeah as opposed to like oh well Amy's drywall was on site from March to July you know but not specific like exactly when like now maybe you could really look at the data like if someone gets injured and say who else was there that day you know well no and I'm laughing because you know we don't deal a lot in claims right like on you know we might track them and I'm gonna like you know if you want to know more about the the wrap-up services we are on CRS offers, you can look at our website, or reach out to Josh Rugga, but we don't touch a lot of claims, but I hear a lot about them when our clients reaches out to research something. - Right, I'm sure you're a repository for all those policies and things. We're the same way, we have all this documentation. So they reach out to say, who do I tender this to, basically? Or something? - Well, yeah. In this scenario, the risk manager, the only thing they had to go off as far as like quick access was the last date that they were invoiced. - Oh God, that's not much at all. - Yeah, and they obviously, I think they had the contract to show when it started. - Yeah. - There was really nothing in between. So I had to put together the timeline of, when they were added to our software, you know, when they were used to place any correspondence. A lot like what you all do, you know? - Yeah, yeah. - You have to put together the puzzle to show. - Right. - Like, here's some, any type of correlation. - Yeah, and going back to like, what I know some GCs do, which is again, like this is like the top tier GCs, they contract with services that will investigate like any incident that happens on site, like immediately. - I know this great guy, Dan Sullivan, he started his own company, Terrier Claims. I think it's been bought as part of, I think Gallagher or Bassett now, but I could be wrong. But his whole business was, okay, within like 12 hours or 24 hours of somebody saying, "I got hurt, we're gonna be there, we're gonna talk to the guy, we're gonna take pictures, we're gonna figure out who was on site, we're gonna document it all." So that way, if there is ever a lawsuit, you have some record, more than just like an accident report that maybe the employee filled out, which is often kind of bare bones, like it's a worker who just writes down like my name and I got hurt. So that sort of information, that's really critical to this whole process, right? But it's not always something that is possible. - It's possible, right? It might not be financially possible. - Well, yeah, but Teresa, I do have a curiosity question. So I get hurt on a job site, and maybe there's documentation of it, maybe there's not. Like, maybe I did tell the superintendent or whatever, but nothing ever came to fruition of it, I found home whatever. - Right. - How long do I have right now, like to New York specifically, to file a claim against them for my injuries or for negligence, I guess? - That's the question. - What's the limitation, right? - I always mix it up in my head, but if you give me like 10 seconds, I can look it up. - Yes, absolutely. It's either, let's hold on. This is looking at our website, because we have a survey. - Yeah, I'm gonna feel like it's kind of important to understand how long they have-- - Yes, you're absolutely right. - Before this is triggered, and what will happen in the next steps as this avoidant comes into play? - Yes, so the injured person has three years to file their suit from their injury. - So if I got hurt today, - You could file suit on February 6th, 27, eight, nine, 29. (laughing) - I always love to wear a hat. - I don't do a hat. - It doesn't have to be like, prior to midnight of that day, or is it like-- - Yeah, it's really, it's pretty strict. Yeah, it's gotta be like, are the nose. - It's like that in concert tickets. - Gotta wait. - No, ideally you don't wanna wait to less minute. - But a lot of people, you will see, a lot of people will wait until the very end of that period, because they start to think about it go, "Hum, maybe I should sue somebody." - So that-- - So that it puts a bug in their ear. - Yeah, you know, play the play the play the game. - Conversations are had. - Right. - They get annoyed with their employer, like whatever it is. - Right, right. - All sorts of things can happen. So that's a good point. It's like, that could happen three years down the road, right? So now the employee sues the GC. The GC turns to their insurance, right? They get defense from their general liability carrier and they answer the complaint, okay? So that takes, that technically under New York law takes 30, you have 30 days to answer a complaint. A lot of times you get an extension, you get an extra 30 days, but you're talking about maybe a month or two, okay? You've got to answer. - Yeah, so-- - So three years to start it. - Yep. - And then somewhere between 30 to 90, - 60, yeah, 90, depending on extensions or whatever, to respond. - Right. And usually that response is really, it's almost always kind of useless. You just go through it and you say, "Denai, deny, deny, deny." Every allegation of the complaint. - Play it. And now, but then now you're off to the races. And now you start this process called discovery. And that is where both sides exchange information. So the GC is gonna ask the employee, send me all your medical records, tell me all about this accident. They're gonna take this deposition. They're gonna take the deposition of the site supervisor of all these people who might have witnessed it. And at some point in that process, maybe, if they don't have a good handle on who caused the accident, at some point in that process, they'll say, this person's injury was caused by X. So I should go pursue that sub. Like for example, this guy fell because the railing that this sub Joe's railings put up was not secured, okay? He now, he testifies in his deposition. I fell backwards 'cause this railing looked like it was secured. It wasn't secured. Oh, that's Joe's railing. Now they're gonna go after Joe's railing and say, "Joe, I need you to come and defend and demify me." Okay. Yeah, because it was caused in whole or in part by or rose out of their own. It was railing, right? So they said the letter to Joe. Joe doesn't respond for four months because Joe is a contractor. And this is Joe's now becoming an impleader. Not yet. See, technically usually you ask first before you sue. You said the letter and you say, "Oh yeah, like, hey." And there's no time limit on that, right? Like there's no time limit on how long that person has to get back to you. So like a lot of times clients send these letters out and then don't follow up on them or the guy doesn't get back to them. So now you could be a year into this personal injury case or even more. And then finally you say, okay, I need to bring this party in. I need to include them, file a third party claim and sue them and say, "You're responsible for this injury." Right? Like try to settle it out of court, but because there's no defined like response time, it kind of gives you the freedom to either say, it's not worth it or, okay, we've got to pursue it, take it and stuff. - Right. And a lot of times the subs will just kind of ignore it and hope it goes away or they try to deal with it some other way, but avoid it. - Avoid it. - Avoid it, you know, stick your head in the sand. But all of that goes on. It was as a matter of course, right? This is the way things work. So you could be looking to bring them in after your case has been going on for quite a long time. And now here is where the new Avoid Act comes into play, okay? - Yeah. So when it becomes a suit and you want to add in pleaders, or I say like you want to add more people to the financial responsibility of this party, this is where the, where previously, as we said in the beginning before I asked a couple questions, sorry about that. This is where, like prior, it was really. - The judge could decide, yeah. - Yeah, the judge could decide you could add at any time until it was pretty much went to where it was settled, essentially. - Right. Or what you trial, you know. - Yeah, went to trial. That was the word, thank you. This is where the time limits change, where it used to be kind of outweel or out discretion based on circumstances. Now there are very clear, like dates and in like tears of dates that I am going to turn over to you and like, it is, unless I have a clarification question, like do my best to keep my guard real tough. Because it's so, Trees, I had to read it like five or six times and then come back to it and try and start to put together the pieces. So this is where. - Right, L.R., it's hard because they start to use terminology and all this stuff and it's like, what does that mean? You know, but. - The easy websters, websters was my, my friend. - What's your friend? So bottom line is, or the easiest one to keep in mind is that the defendant, you know, the general contractor now only has 60 days to bring that third party into the suit after they file their answer to the complaint. So if you remember the plaintiff files that are complaint, you get 30 days to answer the complaint, that's your measuring date. Now, 60 days after that, you have to bring that third party into the lawsuit. Okay. So. - And there's no exceptions to that, right? Like from what I remember, like, it's like, you can't necessarily file for continuance. Like at that point in time, like, they're really wet. - Agreed to more time, basically. - Yeah, which is weird because usually, Let it get. can extend deadlines as they see fit, but you can't even do that here. They've prohibited that. - Yeah, we will fact check that guys. And it there isn't a, like good. No, thank you because I was like, I don't have time to go back and remember where I highlighted that and had that. - No, you can extend it by 30 days between yourselves. But after that, you cannot. The judge has to approve it. - Yeah, so that's true. - Yeah, she get 130 day grace period of both parties agree. - A great, right. - And if one doesn't, then your SOL. - Yeah. - And then after that, if you do need it, the judge has to sign off. And from what it sounds like, it doesn't seem like that will be the intention of the law. - The law. - The judges are the law. - I doubt it. Like why would they do that? So. - Like so. - I mean, guys, there's always the one off miscellaneous mitigating circumstances, but they're pretty clear cut on this. - Yeah, it's like the whole point is to move this along, it seems like. So, so yeah, so you've got that now, 60 day deadline. And there's also what's I think a little bit more flexible is that that 60 day deadline applies when there's a contract, like an identification agreement. There is a separate 60 day deadline that runs from when you become aware of a potential third party's liability if there's no contractual relationship. - Correct. - Okay, that often doesn't apply in construction because we are very contract heavy, you know? Is more likely to apply in situations where there's like a third party, like a bystander, someone walks down the street. - Yeah. - You know, and trips and falls on the sidewalk and they sue the building. And now the building, you know, figures out, or like Verizon was working on the sidewalk that day, you know, that. - Yeah, they don't have a relationship with Verizon, but they could say, oh, now I know I got to sue that, you know? - Yeah. - Yeah, you know, or maybe even it's the city was, you know, changing out the drainage system that day. And there was a lot of dust and whatever it was. - Right, right, there's situations where that would happen, but in construction, bodily injury cases, it's usually all contractual, you know? So, so that's a little bit more flexible though because it's got this becoming aware trigger. But so you could kind of debate like, when did I become aware? You know, but still it's a short, it's a pretty short leash. - Yeah. - And then there's a bunch of other deadlines that they have in there for, like if that party, the party that's been brought in wants to sue another party, how long they have. Like you get it to like third party, - Yeah. - Defended, second third party, defend it, third third party, defend it. It's basically just anybody passing the book to somebody else. - Yeah, so like if Teresa is the original impleader, - Third party, defended. - Yeah, you're the original third party. You have, was it, you said, - 45. - 45 days. - Yeah. And you bring me in. You bring Amy's driver home. And then I have 30 days to realize right or tiger scaffolding is in play. - Right. - And they have 20 days, right or tiger scaffolding has 20 days to add anybody else. - Right, exactly, exactly right. That's it. Good job, baby. - You know I do better with my analogies. Like if I can visualize it, - Right. - Like it helps. - So, well, and that's a good segue because let's talk about what does this mean practically, right? So we kind of talked through the usual scenario, right? And that's a lot of times they don't discover who might be responsible until they take a deposition. And that could be like a year after the suit gets started. You know, things move really slow in litigation. Like they just move so slow. And like if you get a situation where you're filing a motion early on, like the court could sit on that for years and not rule on it. So like you might be thinking, I don't know, it's just, there's all these nightmare scenarios where it could be years before you get to a point where you realize who might be responsible that you want to bring in. And it's not just like the discovery. There's a reason it was kind of, yes, probably too vague, but I'll be at vague because I think it was a mutual understanding that it takes time when you have to document. And it's some of its based on responses, some of its based on statutes. Like, and then what do you do when people don't respond to those? Like, right. It was flexible because of that, you know, and now it's, now it's not. And and now I think, you know, basically what you're going to have happen is you have to figure that out in the first 60 days. So what if you can't? Okay, that's a question. Like what if you can't figure it out? That's, yeah. So I think there's a couple of options, I think. First of all, I think most likely you're going to see automatically. GC's are going to sue the employees employer. A lot of times they would wait to make sure there was some basis to do that. Like that it wasn't just, he's the, because that, because we have case on now that says that they have to be, there has to be a reason. Like they can't just have, you know, it can't just be because they employed the guy. It's got to be because they employed the guy and. Some evidence of him on a job site or. Like something's up the wrong, you know, they, yeah, like a reason, you know, a reason. So there's that. And then there's also, you know, all the other subs that could be potentially implicated. So what's the GC to do? Are they going to now sue every potential sub that was on site that day? Just to protect themselves. That's what a nightmare. Okay. So you could go from a situation where you have maybe two targets to 20, you know, or 10. And you feel compelled to include them all because if you don't, you can't bring them in. Now there is the ability. I think statute says you can still file a separate case against those parties. It's just not in the same case. Okay. Correct. It's severing the relationship. So it has the potential. The one that's closed and whatever happens there now has the potential to be brought up in the one that is now open. Right. It's like a ripple effect. I feel like. Yeah. It is. And like the slow way, it doesn't have to be a massive way or it's the ripples. It's the ripples in the waves that right. So like in a way that's good because now you, you don't lose your right to sue those people. Those are those. Yes. But that's what it mess because now like the whole point of doing it all in one is to streamline things because it's all the same facts and the same discovery and everybody could just exchange things once and be done with it. Now you have two separate cases, potentially two separate sets of lawyers. I'll ask each other to produce documents and and. Yeah. And while in New York state, they might both be within separate burrows of the five burrows or you know, I feel like it would get that nitty gritty. Oh, yeah, yeah. It could be different courts. Yeah. That's a good point. And that's like maybe the subs from New Jersey or something like in some like you never know. Yeah. I feel like there's always like potential at least within, you know, that little geographic region where so many states borders are so close. Like. Yeah, there's all sorts of things that could happen there. And like one case could get ahead of the other. My brain is going like in 40 different directions. There's a lot to this. There's a lot of possibilities here. There's the what was I going to say shit. There's a lot of one case could get ahead of the other. That's what I was going to say. So like I have a case. This is a good example. I have this case that's it's a coverage case. It's about additional and shared coverage. But the same thing could now happen with contractual indemnity, okay, where you've got a separate case dealing with a contractual indemnity from the plaintiff's suit. Okay. In my case, there was a ruling that the employer of the injured guy was negligent. Okay. They were negligent. So we took that ruling and turned to their carrier and said they were negligent. So you have to defend and indemnify us, okay. Primary case with the with the injury. They're appealing that and that's God knows when that will get decided because appeals take forever. Meanwhile, we had a trial date in our coverage case. Okay. And we had to jump through hoops to get that postponed because we were like, we can't decide indemnity if we don't know from the other case who's responsible. I was like a hot freaking mess and I was explaining to the court, I could put on all of this evidence. I could subpoena the plaintiff in that case and basically do the liability trial in my coverage trial. But nobody wants that. You know, yeah. So, so that's a scenario that could happen now, which is not great. Really? Like all of this you're saying, tree. So like it sounds like to me, there's it's creating lots of duplicity. Yes. In room for. Well, sometimes duplicity is good because it shows unison, right? But other times when you see to somewhat duplicit acts, like that's where it's going to like, it's like who's suing Peter to pay Paul? Yeah. Yeah, it's not no, it's insane. And the other, okay, so now let me throw this other thing at you possibility, okay? So in the old way of doing things, when a GC would bring a claim for contractual indemnity within the same lawsuit, many times the GL carrier for the GC would pay that cost of pursuing the same thing. Because even though in that scenario, the GC's acting like a plaintiff, it's part of the defensive strategy. Right? The carrier only has a duty to defend, okay? Not a duty to like proactively pay to go after something. So a lot of times the carriers will pay those costs, even though like if you look at it technically, they're acting as a plaintiff because it's all part of defense, okay? So that's the way it was and that's great, right? Now you've got all your costs paid. Well, it's kind of cohesive because they're in tandem. Exactly. Now, if the GC has to start a separate lawsuit against the subcontractors for indemnity, I anticipate that the insurance companies are going to try to use that as a way to say we're not going to pay the cost of that because that's your you're prosecuting that you're that's your affirmative claim. I'm not defending you. I don't have an obligation to defend you there because you're not on the defensive. Those were in house counsel is going to really start to matter. Yeah. Well, no matter. Yeah. Think about, you know, GC's that I mean, really don't do have a good book of business like but are so exposed to this type of claim that litigating this would put them out of business. Yeah, right. Right. That the cost of that pursuit. Yeah, they might not like it. Fund it. Right. Yeah, but it's in a career's benefit because it shifts liability away from them. But, you know, unless you're working with a carrier partner that you have a good relationship with and that you can, you know, that understands these things. It's just, yeah. So I see a separate line of coverage appearing here where it's like, to pay for this, to pay for this. Yeah, yeah, because it is cohesive, yeah, because it is cohesive. Like you could potentially like create a form, I mean obviously this is to start well, I guess, admitted carriers could possibly do it if it was approved but I feel like this is something we would start seeing in the non-admitted surplus lines area. Right, right. Yeah, and I don't love that either because now it's like they'll charge for it, they'll sublimit it. Yeah, you know, they'll do all this stuff. They'll sublimit it and then they'll be exclusions to that or something that's built somewhere into it. I'm having a current moment with manuscript trunks of the geoholices. Yeah, yeah, like that foundational, the 16 page foundation that ISO so wonderfully created is then taken and manipulated into quite literally shoots and ladders. I know he's that last season but it is, I have really started to read into those recently. Yeah, yep, and it's crazy. There's so much going on there. Things that make you go, explicit, instantly, to your level. Yeah, yeah, so that's the, that's, there's a lot of potential downsides I see. I don't know what the, you know, what was the, why did they do this? You know, I don't know, you know, I'm sure there's information out there about why this happened and I'm sure they were thinking this is a great idea. We're going to speed up the process of litigation. You know, but the practical reality is that it's going to be a shit show. There was, I will, guys, I will reference it on or I will correct myself if I need to, but I'm pretty confident in this that somewhere in there they were talking about like, let's say a, you know, this, the litigation like for this one context was really at the point where it was ready to go to trial like everybody was ready, like, you know, it's taken three years for this to get there, like and they have a date. And then on the 11th hour, they add another inflator or they add another third party. And that case is now stalled and delayed until they figure out the relationship of that. And if they need to also bring them into this case. Yeah, right. So that you think that was like the impetus behind this sort of law. That's what they kind of reference. Yeah. I might be able to find it if you give me a minute. Yeah. And then I can read it to you and you tell me if it's worth. So Amy was looking back at the history or the the reasoning, right, for the law. And some commentary on it. And I think what stood out to me was the comment that they're trying to avoid protracted litigation, but now they just might be front loading the problem. And I think that's very true because essentially if you just sue every subcontractor that might possibly be involved, you're going to get a slew of motions and attempts to get those parties out of the case. That's just going to slow things down anyways and be difficult to untangle. So it's like, what's better? Waiting to add those parties until there's a good reason or throwing everybody in there and making them have to fight, you know, early on about who might be responsible and who shouldn't be in the case. So I guess I guess my thought is like, it's a double edged sword obviously. Like, you know, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. But how is the level of proof to start the complaint? The same level of proof it is to add an additional third party. Yeah, yeah, it's pretty much easier to like add them. No, it's about the same. We just have to have like a reasonable basis to add people or to bring a suit. Like I can't, you know, you're prohibited from bringing suits that are fraudulent, vexatious, but okay. Yeah. Yeah. I feel like my other thought is that when you said fraudulent, like this spawned back to an episode we did in the first season that was tradesmen, I believe was involved, but it was evidencing fraud. Right. Right. And you know, conspiracy. Yeah, like above and beyond just like the fake slip and fall or, you know, things like that. But it going to another level that was also involving like people that were lawyers attorneys like lawyers, everybody. That that too uphold like ethical standards. Right. And I feel like somewhere in there, like, and maybe this is just me, like, you know, my brain and how I like to connect dots and like the timelines. But I feel like this was kind of like I don't want to say like if you do them, but it was more like, okay, get your shit together. Yeah, it might be like, yeah, drug driven by that to try to make it harder. Harder. Yeah, right. Because I think with even though they they still have like maybe they didn't get included in the first thing in this timeline, you know, they still have the right to sue, right? Like they can still start their own litigation. But they're taking on that cost now. Yeah. You know, they have to now collect their documents and evidence of proof. And obviously I feel like there's tears to, you know, there's obviously like tears to subs. And you know, they're smaller GCs, they're smaller traits. And then there's, you know, a mom and pop. A pop shop box like, you know, and I feel like the level of financial ability to do this. Um, yeah, it's going to maybe even the knowledge of how to pursue that. And I don't say that as an insult by any means, but like Teresa, if I didn't have you, I might catch the gist of this. Yeah. But they're a huge, like I understand the thought. Like I don't, I don't feel like there was any malicious intent to this. I think it was actually a great step forward. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and if nothing else, a great step forward to acknowledge an issue, right? That has not changed, at least to my knowledge since the what late 18, ever. Yeah. Yeah. It is at least an acknowledgement that this, hey, this needs to change something about this. Right. This process takes too long. It's, you know, it was probably to try to protect the injured people, you know, because of you. Yeah. About it. All of that third party stuff drags it out and delays when that plaintiff could get potentially money for their injury. So, in that sense, I get it. You know, but look at it from the perspective of who we represent. She sees usually or owners, it's going to make their lives kind of a nightmare, you know, to expensive. Yeah. Well, if they don't, if they don't already have current procedures in place. Yeah. That would at least help people that they could to accurately document and identify. Like, it's going to make them now at least really need to acknowledge the documentation matters. Right. So I think that's, so that's a good place to kind of wrap it. I think is to say, what should you do is you have to be proactive about your your injuries on site and documenting. Yes, no matter what size GC you are, you have to come up with some plan to document injuries and who might have been responsible who was on site names of people, contact information, get all that stuff down. Because that's going to help us. So that's point one. And I think point two is just pay attention to this law. Look, it's coming April. It's coming. And I think it's going to take a lot of people a while to realize the impact. And you have to be prepared basically to be more aggressive with your risk transfer your tenders, your pursuit of contractual indemnity. Because if you don't, you're going to have to bring all that stuff into separate case is potentially going to be a lot more expensive for you. Part of this makes me feel very heard. And I think I think you feel that same kind of like. We always say like the contract matters like, you know, documentation matters like we have to, you know, clarity matters like all of these things like that, you know, we always say we're insurance nerds. But, well, I do see like, I don't want to say that the catastrophe, but the moment Terry like of this, but then I also see it. And whatever way it was intentioned kind of forcing the industry to take a direction of, you know, transparency almost. Yeah, right. I think you're right. That could be good for everybody, you know, in the log rod. It's just going to be a little tougher first. And the other thing that like I thought was important to notate and I know this is a long one guys, but I think this is important to point out. And there was a couple scenarios that didn't apply to. And it was the workers comp 11 like grave entry, I believe. And then, you know, I think, I think it's good to point out it's the claim if it's based on the grave entry or if the employer's identity was not known until after the expiration of the time period. Those are exceptions to the rule. Yes, yes, but then once they trigger the claim. The same timeline applies. Right. Right. So it's still really restrictive. Yeah. That's to unpack people. Yeah. Well, this was a good topic to tackle, I think, for our first episode back, get back to the group. Yes, stay tuned because I feel like we should probably do a part two to this after April 18. Yeah. Yeah. And see kind of where it's where it's going. Dear God, I found my second plot. I think it's going to be a good one. These timelines apply to all pending active cases as well. So if you haven't reached an agreement. By for 18. This timeline kicks in. Yeah. Right. Like it doesn't matter if you're two years in or two days in this now applies to you. And then you can see that you're going to be able to get back to the end of the story.