It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm getting caught up on some court decisions that hit my email inbox a while back. Here are three of them that are of special interest:
- Flores v. ERC Holding, LLC. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department threw out an injured construction worker's claim under Labor Law Sections 240 and 241. The construction project's owner and general contractor were not liable under 240 and 241, the court said, because the worker was not on the actual construction site at the time of the injury. He was preparing and moving steel beams, destined for the building under construction, at his employer's premises. The court said he was not performing construction work or in a construction area at the time of the injury, and therefore 240 and 241 do not apply.
- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Great American E&S Insurance Company. An electrical contractor, believing that Workers' Compensation benefits would be the exclusive remedy for an employee injured on a job site, took more than a year to report the incident to its Commercial General Liability insurance carrier. The contractor was required to hold harmless the owner and general contractor, both of whom were named in the employee's lawsuit. However, the CGL carrier denied coverage due to late notice of the claim from the insured. The trial court sided with the contractor, but the appellate court reversed the decision.:
"Although a reasonable good faith belief of nonliability may, in certain circumstances, excuse a failure to give timely notice ..., such circumstances do not exist here. (The contractor) contends that because it believed Best's exclusive remedy was under the Workers' Compensation Law, it could not be held liable for her injuries. However, this claimed belief was not reasonable under the circumstances... Moreover, (the contractor) never sought clarification of the coverage at issue, either from its counsel or insurance carrier...It was not reasonable for (the contractor) to believe that (the injured worker) would not seek further recovery from the site owner and project manager, both of which (the contractor) had agreed to defend and indemnify. In the face of this indemnification requirement, coupled with the fact that (the injured worker) was taken by ambulance to the hospital and remained out of work for over a month, (the contractor) is unable to show a reasonable belief in nonliability."
- Medina v. City of New York. In this Labor Law case, the First Department ruled partly in favor of the injured worker and partly in favor of the owner. The court ruled that the worker's claim under 241 should be returned to the trial court because there were questions of fact as to whether the worker was performing demolition work at the time of the injury (the trial court had thrown this claim out.) However, the court dismissed his claim under 240 because his injury did not result from a hazard "directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person." Since this was not a gravity-related injury, 240 does not apply.
I think it's interesting how the First Department is resisting broader interpretations of 240 and 241. The courts have traditionally read these laws as providing very broad protections for injured construction workers. These decisions show that even 240 and 241 have their limits.
Are any of you seeing these narrower interpretations in Labor Law cases? Give us the details in the comments.
Comments