Travers v Briarcliff Manor Investments, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
This construction accident case concerns whether a steel erection sub-subcontractor must provide contractual indemnification to the owner and general contractor after its employee allegedly fell from an extension ladder on the job site.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted summary judgment to Gabriel Steel Erectors, Inc. (Gabriel) dismissing the third-party causes of action for contractual indemnification.
The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order dismissing the contractual indemnification claims against Gabriel.
The record presented triable issues of fact as to whether Gabriel was negligent and had assumed primary responsibility for the safety of its workers. The court also held that the indemnification clause, which required indemnification "to the fullest extent permitted by law," was not barred by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1(1) [an agreement purporting to indemnify a party for damages arising out of the party's own negligence is against public policy and is void and unenforceable], because such language permits partial indemnification for damages not caused by the indemnitees' own negligence.
Background
SHI-III Briarcliff REIT, LLC owned the property and hired Andron Construction Corp. as general contractor for the project. Andron subcontracted steel work to Orange County Ironworks, LLC, which then retained Gabriel Steel Erectors, Inc. as a sub-subcontractor to install steel. Under the Orange County Ironworks, LLC-Gabriel contract, Gabriel agreed, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify the owner and general contractor for claims arising out of Gabriel's negligent acts or omissions in performing its work. Wayne Travers, a Gabriel employee, allegedly fell from an extension ladder while working on the project and sued for personal injuries, and his spouse asserted a derivative claim. The owner and general contractor then brought third-party contractual indemnification claims against Gabriel.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted those branches of Gabriel's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third-party contractual indemnification causes of action, effectively ruling that the owner and general contractor could not proceed on those claims against Gabriel.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and denied Gabriel's request for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claims. It found factual issues based on testimony that Travers received instructions only from Gabriel and that Gabriel's foreman completed weekly safety and hazard analyses, supporting a possible finding that Gabriel bore primary responsibility for worker safety. The court further held that the contract's savings language allowing indemnification to the fullest extent permitted by law preserved a claim for partial indemnification even if the owner or general contractor were themselves partly negligent.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York law that an indemnification clause in a construction contract is enforceable when it is limited by language such as "to the fullest extent permitted by law." Under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1(1) [an agreement purporting to indemnify a party for damages arising out of the party's own negligence is against public policy and is void and unenforceable], a party cannot obtain indemnity for its own negligence, but it may still seek partial contractual indemnification for the share of damages attributable to another contracting party's negligence. The case also shows that summary judgment is inappropriate where the evidence leaves open factual questions about which entity controlled the worksite safety of the injured worker.
In New York construction cases, a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor cannot defeat contractual indemnification claims on summary judgment merely by arguing that the owner or general contractor may also have been negligent. If the contract contains a lawful savings clause and the facts permit a finding that the subcontractor had safety responsibility or was negligent, partial contractual indemnification remains available.