Jamieson v Noble Construction Group, LLC
Judges
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
This construction-accident case concerns indemnification and insurance-procurement disputes arising after a worker fell when perimeter safety netting at a building project allegedly failed. The underlying claims were brought under Labor Law § 200 [New York workplace safety and supervision liability statute], Labor Law § 240 [New York Scaffold Law governing elevation-related worker protections], and Labor Law § 241(6) [construction-site safety statute imposing compliance with Industrial Code provisions].
The Supreme Court denied Monolithic Contracting, Inc.'s request for summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim against it; denied the defendants' request for summary judgment on contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and breach of contract against Monolithic and on contractual indemnification against Lippolis Electric, Inc.; and granted Lippolis's request for summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim against it.
The Appellate Division reversed only the portion of the order that granted Lippolis summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim. It denied that branch of Lippolis's motion. The remainder of the order was affirmed.
Lippolis failed to make a prima facie showing that the indemnification clause was not triggered, because it did not establish that the plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of his work for Lippolis. At the same time, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on indemnification because, under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 [statute limiting construction indemnity agreements that purport to indemnify a party for its own negligence], they failed to prove they were free from negligence. Monolithic also was not entitled to dismissal because factual issues remained as to whether the accident arose out of its work installing the netting and whether that work was performed properly.
Background
The plaintiff allegedly was injured at a construction site when vertical safety netting installed around the perimeter of a building under construction gave way at both the top and bottom, causing him to fall. He sued the construction manager and the owner and tenants of the building, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200 [New York workplace safety and supervision liability statute], Labor Law § 240 [New York Scaffold Law governing elevation-related worker protections], and Labor Law § 241(6) [construction-site safety statute imposing compliance with Industrial Code provisions]. The defendants then brought a third-party action against Monolithic Contracting, Inc., the subcontractor alleged to have installed the perimeter netting, and Lippolis Electric, Inc., the plaintiff's employer and an electrical subcontractor. The third-party complaint asserted contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Monolithic, and contractual indemnification against Lippolis.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on their third-party claims for contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and breach of contract against Monolithic and for contractual indemnification against Lippolis. It also denied Monolithic's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim against it. However, it granted Lippolis's motion for summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim asserted against Lippolis.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the provision that granted Lippolis summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim and substituting a provision denying that relief. The court held that a movant seeking dismissal of a contractual indemnification claim must show that it had no contractual duty to indemnify, including by showing that the clause was not triggered or was inapplicable. Lippolis did not establish that the plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of his work with Lippolis. The court otherwise affirmed. It agreed that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on contractual indemnification against Monolithic or Lippolis because they failed to prove they were free from negligence as required under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 [statute limiting construction indemnity agreements that purport to indemnify a party for its own negligence]. It also held that Monolithic was not entitled to dismissal of the contractual indemnification claim because it was undisputed that Monolithic installed the perimeter netting, so factual issues remained as to whether the accident arose out of its work and whether the netting was properly installed to protect against falls and debris. The denial of summary judgment on common-law indemnification against Monolithic was likewise proper because the defendants failed to establish that they lacked supervisory control over the work, and the denial of summary judgment on the insurance-procurement claim was proper because the defendants did not show that Monolithic failed to name Noble Construction Group, LLC, as an additional insured.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the distinct summary-judgment burdens in New York construction indemnity litigation. A party moving to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim must affirmatively show that the indemnity provision was not triggered or otherwise does not apply. Conversely, a party seeking summary judgment enforcing contractual indemnification in a construction contract subject to General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 [statute limiting construction indemnity agreements that purport to indemnify a party for its own negligence] must establish its own freedom from negligence. The ruling also underscores that unresolved questions about supervisory control, causation, and whether an accident arose out of a subcontractor's work will defeat summary judgment on both contractual and common-law indemnification claims.
In a construction accident case, neither an indemnitor nor an indemnitee will win summary judgment on contractual indemnification without strong proof on the trigger of the clause and on negligence. Here, Lippolis could not obtain dismissal because it failed to show the accident did not arise from the plaintiff's work for it, while the defendants could not obtain indemnification from Monolithic or Lippolis because they failed to prove they were free from negligence.