Hoist Failure Injures Worker, Raises N.Y. Labor, Insurance Law Questions

Case File

When a hoist didn't work properly, a worker sustained an injury and questions about New York's Labor Law and indemnification arose. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Sarante v. Courtland Development, LLC, No. 2024-04705 (N.Y. App. Div. 05/22/25)

What Happened

A premises owner contracted with a general contractor for a construction project. The general contractor subcontracted with a third party to reinforce the building's structure with steel beams. A worker for the third party alleged that he was injured while hoisting a heavy steel beam from the basement to the first floor using a chain block pulley system when the elevated metal poles of the hoist system collapsed and injured him.

The trial court denied the third party's motions for summary judgment dismissing the worker's Labor Law § 240(1) claim and partially granted the contractor's motion for summary judgment on claims against the third party on breach of contract for failure to procure insurance but denied the contractor's motion on its claim for contractual indemnification.

Rule of Law

Under New York Labor Law § 240(1), contractors, owners, and their agents must furnish hoists that give proper protection to workers using them.

Regarding indemnity, as a rule in New York, an insurer that has paid a claim on behalf of any insured who is only vicariously liable for the loss is entitled to recover the amount paid by way of indemnity from the wrongdoer.

What Appellate Division Said

Appellate Division agreed with the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the worker's Labor Law § 240(1) claim.

"The chain block pulley system was a safety device that failed to protect him from the hazard of a falling object, namely the poles of the device," Appellate Division wrote. "[The worker] testified that when he used the pulley system to hoist the I-beam, it made contact with three other beams, the pulley hoist system's metal base detached suddenly while making a 'pop' sound, and the poles hit his neck."

Appellate Division also agreed with the trial court on the contractor's contractual indemnification claims, since the contractor did not demonstrate that the third party's insurance carrier insured them.

Instead, the facts showed:

+ In its subcontract, the third party agreed to defend and indemnify defendants for claims or losses arising directly or indirectly from the third party's negligence, recklessness, and willful misconduct in the performance of its work.

+ According to the subcontract and the coverage letter from the third party's insurance carrier, the contractor was not an additional insured at the time.

+ In the coverage letter, the carrier agreed to defend the contractor based on the "potential for coverage" and further reserved its right to deny coverage for indemnification should there be a determination that the third party was not liable for the loss.

"The right to indemnity 'arises by operation of law when the insurer makes payment to the insured,'" Appellate Division wrote, citing North Star Reins. Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 604 N.Y.S. 2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). "Therefor, [the contractor's] right to indemnification has not vested."

But, the contractor did have a triable claim for contribution and common-law indemnification because the third party failed to submit competent medical evidence that the worker did not suffer a "grave injury" under under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Workers' Comp 101: In New York, a "grave injury" means "death, permanent and total loss of use or
amputation of an arm, leg, hand or foot, loss of multiple fingers, loss of multiple toes, paraplegia or quadriplegia, total and permanent blindness, total and permanent deafness, loss of nose, loss of ear,
permanent and severe facial disfigurement, loss of an index finger or an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability, per Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Verdict: Appellate Division upheld the trial court's ruling.

Takeaway

While the third party or the worker might have been part of the accident, any fault on the worker's part would amount to contributory negligence and would not be the sole proximate cause of the accident and thus the contractor couldn't escape the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.

Share This Article: