throbber
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX NO- 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`
`
`2017 03:12 P
`RECHWE) WSC%§%O:11046//2lgil/32017
`idsEE‘DOCNEW. YORK COUNTY CLERK 032015 04:07 PM
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`RECEIVED NYSCEF:
`(33/13/2015
`NYSCEF DOC‘ N01 321
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK —— NEW YORK COUNTY
`
`
`
`PRESENT:
`
`HON. MARTIN SHULMAN
`Justice
`
`PART
`
`1
`
`Ralph P. North.
`
`-V.
`
`Air 8: Liquid Systems Corp., et al.
`
`INDEX No.
`
`190114/13
`
`The following papers, numbered 1 to 8 were read on this motion and cross-motion for contractual
`indemnification
`'
`
`PAPERS NUMBERED
`
`Notice of Motion - Affirmation - Exhibits A~O - Mem. of Law
`E—Fiied Doc. Nos. 227-244
`Answering Affirmation ~ Exhibits 1-23 - Mom. of Law
`' E-Fiied Doc. Nos. 245~26§
`Reeiy Morn. of Law
`E-Filed Doc. No. 278
`
`Notice of Cross—Motion - Affirmation - Exhibits A—C
`E-Filed Doc. Nos. 270—274
`Answering Affirmation - Exhibits A-F - Mom. of Law
`E-Fiied Doc. Nos. 279-286
`Reply Affirmation
`E-Filed Doc. No. 288
`Supp Aft. in Opp. {per Court's reguest) - Exhibits - Supp. I‘r‘ieT. of
`E.Filed Doc. Nos. 309-31
`I Supp. an. in Further Support
`’E-Filed Doc. Nos. 319-320
`
`Low
`
`‘1
`
`B.)
`
`I
`
`(DNOTU’T-FI
`
`' 090 IVIUI.
`Crnoo,fifin{>
`
`nn-U
`u.
`
`;
`L
`
`L_.j Yes
`
`__1 “£0
`
`Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that the portion of defendant National Grid
`Generation, LLC d/b/a National Grid’s (“Nationai Grid") motion seeking contractuai
`indemnification from defendant O’Connor Constructors, Inc. f/k/a Thomas O’Connor & Co.,
`Inc. (“O’Connof’), and O’Connor's cross-motion with respect to such claim, are decided in
`accordance with the attached decision and order.
`‘
`
`FORTHEFOLLOWINGREASONiSi:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MOTION/CASEISRESPECTFULLYREFERREDTOJUSTICE
`
`W’—
`
`Dated: March 13 2015
`
`Martin Shuiman, J.S.C.
`
`E/NON-EINAL DISPOSITION
`Check one: B FINAL DISPOSITION
`Check if appropriate:
`[I DO NOT POST
`i7 REFERENCE
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDW3
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 1
`
`......................................................................-..X
`m RE: NEW YORK CITY
`ASBESTOS LlTlGATlON
`
`........................................................................-X
`RALPH P. NORTH,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`index No: 190114/13
`
`Decision and Order
`
`AlR & LlQUlD SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as
`Successor by Merger to BUFFALO PUMPS,
`NC, at al.,
`
`Defendants.
`..........................................................................X
`
`Among various relief, National Grid Generation, LLC, d/b/a National Grid
`
`(“National Grid”), formerly known as Long island Lighting Company (“LlLCO”) moved
`
`pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) for a judgment of dismissal notwithstanding the verdict, a
`
`new trial and/or remittitur of that portion of the verdict awarding plaintiff Ralph North
`(“‘North” or “Plaintiff") $3.5 million for future pain and suffering. in its January 21, 2015
`
`bench decision, this court denied each of these branches of National Grid’s motion‘, but
`
`reserved decision on that branch of its post-verdict Motion seeking contractual
`
`‘ This court concluded that the trial evidence supported the jury verdict finding: LlLCO
`exercised supervisory control over the work of all the contractors during the construction of the
`Northport Power Station ("Northport") which exposed Plaintiff to asbeStos dust (first theory of
`iiabilty); LlLCO had actual or constructive notice of, or created an unsafe premises condition
`which it negligently failed to remedy (second theory of liability); LlLCO acted with reckless
`disregard for Plaintiff’s safety; and LlLCO was 100% liable for Plaintiff contracting pleural
`mesothelioma. This court further determined that the future pain and suffering award was fair
`and did not deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see Matter of New York City
`Abestos Litig. [Konstantin], 121 AD3d 230, 255 {15‘ Dept 2014)).
`
`'
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX N0. 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`indemnification against defendant, O’Connor Constructors, inc, formerly known as
`
`Thomas O’Connor & Co, inc. (“O’Connor”)(”i\/iotion”). O’Connor cross-moved for an
`
`order denying National Grid’s Motion for summary judgment disguised as post-verdict
`
`relief. Both the Motion and CrosssMotion are consolidated for disposition.
`
`O’Connor’s Cross-Motion initially raises a number of procedural arguments for
`n:
`t u Connor
`
`denying ma --
`
`- =Grid’s w’icticn, viz” when Eiaintiii’s direct ciairn again
`
`0')
`
`settled, National Grid’s crosssciaim against O'Connor for indemnification was never
`
`severed and converted into a separate third—party action, rendering the Motion
`
`procedurally improper; the Motion is premature inter alia because National Grid has not
`
`suffered a loss by paying Plaintiff to satisfy the judgment against LlLCO; National Grid ‘
`
`never presented the issue of “conditionai” indemnification for the jury ‘c decide; and
`
`when O’Connor initially sought pre—trial summary judgment, National Grid never cross-
`
`moved for the relief it now seeks. National Grid counters that it afforded O'Connor
`
`ample and timely notice of its intent to seek indemnification so the latter could protect
`
`its interests. National Grid further argues that severance and conversion of its cross—
`
`claim to a third—party complaint were unwarranted as the main action was never
`
`dismissed but proceeded to trial ending with a jury verdict against same legally
`
`warranting its Motion for contractuai
`
`indemnification against O'Connor,
`
`O’Connor’s procedural arguments grounded on technicalities are unpersuasive
`
`as it was entirely appropriate to seek a post-verdict ruling as to its entitlement to
`
`contractual indemnification (see Yu v Greenway Mews Realty, LLC, 99 ADBd 619 [15‘
`
`Dept 2012]). Moreover, addressing the Motion now rather than later fosters judicial
`
`economy and reduces the litigation costs for all interested parties. Accordingly, National
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`NyiEEEFDDOCNELV:
`COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX NO- 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`Grid’s otherwise timely and proper Motion will be addressed on its merits.
`
`National Grid’s Motion rests on identical indemnification provisions contained in
`
`LiLCO’s August 9, 1965 contract2 (Exhibit N to Motion) and its February 26, 1970
`
`contract3 (Exhibit 0 to Motion). Clause XX of'these contracts states, in relevant part
`
`("indemnity ciause”):
`
`The Contractor ii.e., O’Connor] hereby undertakes and agrees to
`indemnify and hold harmless the Company tie, LlLCO}, its officers,
`directors, employers, agents and servants, from and against all losses,
`damages, claims, liens and encumbrances, or any or all of them, arising
`out of or in any way connected with the work, and whatever made or
`incurred, including any and all liability imposed by law and/or contract
`and/or custom, upon the Company, its officers, directors, employers,
`agents, and sen/ants or any or all of them, whether or not it be claimed or
`proven that there was negiigenc—e or breach of statutory duty or both upon
`the part of the Company, its officers, directors, employers, agents and
`servants; and in any case, the Company shall have the right to demand
`that the Contractor shall undertake to defend any and all suits and to
`investigate and defend any and all claims whether justified or not,
`providing only that the claim or suit shalt be against the Company, its
`officers, directors, employers, agents and servants.
`Based on the foregoing, National Grid argues that LlLCO and O’Connor were
`
`sophisticated parties who conducted arm’s length negotiations, among other agreed—to
`terms. to include the indemnity clause that shifted the former’s iiabiiity for worker related
`injuries to the iatter even if LlLCO was found to be negligent. Citing to relevant case
`law, National Grid further argues that this broadly written, unambiguous indemnity
`
`2 The 1965 contract required O’Connor to furnish labor, material and equipment to erect
`and insulate the dust collectors, forced draft fans and breaching at Northport Unit 1 in
`
`3 The 1970 contract required O’Connor to erect the Northport Unit 3 steam generator
`(boiler) and related systems in accordance with LlLCO‘s specifications. This contract further
`gave LiLCO the right to direct O’Connor to erect a condenser and an electirostatic] precipitator
`
`at Unit 3 as well.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO.
`190114/2013
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF:
`06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`clause is enforceable as a matter of law.
`
`As borne out by the triai record, Nationai Grid essentialiy contends that O'Connor
`
`was one of several major sub-contractors at Northport during the relevant periods North
`
`worked there and “[d]ue to its significant roie in the construction of Northport during the
`
`period of Plaintist exposure to asbestos [‘aris[ing] out of’ and ‘connected in any way
`
`with the work’.
`
`.
`
`. of O’Connor} as well as its contractual reiatiensnip with LtLCO,
`
`O’Connor is obligated to indemnify and hold National Grid harmless in this matter.”
`
`(bracketed matter added)(National Grid’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion at
`
`p 42);
`
`Ii
`
`O’Connor’s Cross-Motion raises the following points:
`
`The indemnity clause expressly limits G’Connor’s potential liabiiity for its own
`work“ at Northport and is not broadly worded to obligate O‘Connor “to indemnify
`National Grid for losses or damages incurred by the work of other contractors or
`even LiLCO’s own negligence or breach of statutory duty. .
`(Sapon Aft to
`Cross-Motion at 1i28);
`
`There is neither factual support for National Grid to seek indemnity against
`O’Connor and full reimbursement for all the work performed to complete
`Northport, nor evidence produced at trial that O’Connor’s work required under
`the 1965 and 1970 contracts was the soie cause of Plaintiff’s asbestos-related
`injuries (see generally, Sapon Aft to Cross—Motion at 111129-35);
`
`in opposing O’Connor’s eariier motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
`of North's claim and National Grid's cross—claim against it, National Grid’s
`counsel conceded there was “an issue of fact as to whether O’Connor owes
`National Grid contractual indemnity in this case. .
`(O’Malley Opp Aft at Ti 5; see
`also, Exhibit E to Cross-Motion) presumably because Nationai Grid, as a
`successor to LlLCO, had no direct privity with O’Connor under the 1965 and
`1970 contracts;
`
`
`
`4 in Clause ll of these contracts (i.e., the Definitions provision), “[t]he word ‘Work’ shail
`mean all the matters and things herein agreed to be furnished or done by or on the part of the
`Contractor including, but not limited to, iabor, services, materials and machinery."
`
`.4.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX N0. 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`I
`
`i
`
`I
`
`While National Grid admitted in open court that it bears successor liability for
`' LlLCO’s actions (Exhibit A to Cross—Motion), nonetheless, it has not proven it is a
`successor-in-interest to automaticaily benefit from the indemnity clause (i.e.,
`references to the “Company, its officers, directors, agents and employees” in this
`’1
`fl
`contract provision does not include “successors , assigns”, etc);
`
`Because LlLCO “remains an ‘aotive’ Domestic Business Corporation and has not
`been dissolved, according to the office of the New York Secretary of State"
`(Sapon Aff to Cross-Motion at fi24; see also, Exhibit B thereto), National Grid
`offers no proof as to the “intent” of the parties to these decades old contracts to
`impute to any successor entity LiLCO’s contractuai indemnity rights against
`OiConnor; and
`
`National Grid never tendered its defense to O’Connor, abandoned a vita!
`defense strategy (i.e.,'declined to pursue a ore—trial summary judgment motion)
`and after obtaining an adverse jury verdict, now prefers to baselessly shift its
`iiability to O’Connor.
`
`in opposition to the Cross-Motion, Natlcnai Grid ciaims it never forfeited its right
`
`to contractual indemnification and the indemnity ciause obligates O’Connor “to
`
`indemnify LlLCO and its successors for all claims which were ‘in any way connected
`
`with the work .
`
`.
`
`. including any and all liability imposed by law’ .
`
`.
`
`(National Grid Repiy
`
`Memorandum of Law at p 7); pursuant to Clause XXll of these contracts (“This contract
`
`shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their heirs, executors, administrators,
`
`successors and assigns. .
`
`as Exhibits N and O to Motion, supra) and other
`
`documentary evidence produced at triai, National Grid has established it is a successor-
`
`in—interest to contractually benefit from the indemnity clause; National Grid never
`
`abandoned its motion for summary judgment as it was simply marked off the court’s
`
`motion calendar with leave to reinstate same by letter and never had to tender its
`
`defense to O’Connor; and as the indemnity clause makes clear, the former’s
`
`entitlement to contractual indemnification from O'Connor including inter alia a judgment
`
`against it, attorneys' fees and costs is not dependent on a finding of fault.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC
`NO
`403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX NO' 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`Among other points raised in its Cross-Motion, O’Connor's reply summarily
`
`reiterates that because National Grid never pursued its cross—claim against O’Connor at
`
`trial and merely sought to have the jury apportion liability for the former’s negligence, its
`
`unambiguous contractual definition of its “work” limits any claimed indemnity
`
`obligation, should the court perceive the indemnity clause to be ambiguous, then the
`
`ambiguity triggered issues of fact which should have been disposed of during the jury
`
`trial. Finally, O’Connor points out that National Grid’s reference to Clause XXll,
`
`not proof that these contracts
`denominated the “Contractor Not to Assign” provision,
`have been legally assigned to the latter to benefit from the indemnity clause 40 years
`
`3
`
`after the Northport work was completed.
`
`Discussion
`
`As noted, supra, O’Connor‘s Cross-Motion repeatedly questions National Grid’s
`
`standing as LILCO’s successor—in-interest
`
`to enforce the indemnity clause contained in
`
`the LiLCOO’Connor contracts. After the post-trial Motion and Cross-Motion became
`
`sub judice and at this court’s direction, National Grid supplemented the record and
`
`provided a more complete package of documentation with a supporting affidavit from
`
`National Grid's senior litigation counsel (see Rossetti Supp Aff to Motion and the
`
`Merger, Power Supply and Assignment Agreements as Exhibits A-C thereto) it believes
`
`l
`
`corroborates LiLCO’s assignment to National Grid (previously knovvn as BL Generation
`
`LLC; see also, Exhibits D-G to Rosetti Supp Aff to Motion) of all of itsrights, obligations
`
`and interests including its ownership of Northport.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX N0. 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`in addition to reiterating some of its arguments raised in its Cross—Motion, supra,
`
`O’Conncr’s sur—reply utilizes this barely opened window of opportunity to continue to
`
`claim that the paper trail does not prove LlLCO expressly assigned its contractual
`
`rights to National Grid; North’s 1997 personal injury claim against LlLCQ was obviously
`
`not pending as of “the Closing Date of the Merger Agreement dated June 26, 1997 .
`
`.
`
`{Sapon SunReply Aft at {l 8} and. theref‘re, National Grid’s claim tor indemnity under
`
`the LILCO-O’Connor contracts was not part of the assets LlLCO transferred pursuant
`
`thereto; and even though these contracts pre—date the enactment of GGL §5-322.1,5
`
`public policy compels the court to retroactively apply this statute to prevent National
`
`Grid from being indemnified for North’s asbestos-related injuries a jury- has determined
`
`was solely caused by LlLCG’s negligence.
`
`Despite O’Connor taking issue with National Grid’s standing to seek
`
`indemnification, this court finds record support entitling National Grid to initiate and
`
`prosecute its cross claim against O’Connor for indemnification as LlLCO’s successor-
`
`in-interest. That being said, the substantive issue of whether National Grid has
`
`contractual indemnity rights against O'Connor, a settling co-defendant, for the post—
`
`verdict judgment North was awarded in the sum of $6,731,294.04 against National Grid
`
`is not a simple one, especially when the jury found National Grid to be 100% liable for
`
`5 “An indemnification agreement [executed after 1975] is void as against public policy
`pursuant to GOL 5-3221 it it contains language that indemnifies an owner or general contractor
`for harm caused for their own negligence The purpose of GOL 5-3221 is to prevent
`subcontractors from assuming liability to the negligence of the owner or contractor pursuant to
`the contract, Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172, 558 N.E.2d 430, 556 N.Y.S.
`2d 991 (1999) .
`. .“(bracketed matter added)(see Matter of 91St St. Crane Collapse Litig.
`(Graves), 2014 Misc. LEXlS 1108, 2014 NY Slip Op 30634 (Sup Ct NY Co Mendez, J).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX NO- 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`Plaintiff's asbestos related injuries.6 The historic rule was that “contracts will not be
`
`construed to indemnify a person against his own negligence unless such intention is
`
`expressed in unequivocal terms’ (Thompson—Starred Co. v Otis Ei. Co, 217 NY 36, 41,
`
`2 NE2d 35 [19361, or if ‘that appears to have been the unmistakable intent of the
`
`parties“ (Kur‘ir v Port Chester Hons. item, ‘28 NY2d 459, 456, 223 NE2d 25, 276 NYS
`
`612 [1966])”. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Croteau) V AC. & 8., 41 AD3d
`
`299, 301 (15‘ Dept 2007). That being noted, the Croteau Court went on to state that the
`
`Court of Appeals has also held that:
`
`[B]road indemnification clauses purporting to apply to “any and all liability"
`shouid be construed as meaning what they say, by allowing them to cover
`“any and all" liability on the part of the person being indemnified (see
`Levine v Shell Oil Co, 28 NY2d 205, 211, 269 NE2d 799, 321 NYSZd 81
`[1971]).
`[Moreover,] [ijndemnification provisions have been enforced,
`despite negligence on the part of the party being indemnified, where the
`provision stated that they applied to “any and all claims, suits, loss, cost
`and liability” (id. at 210) or “any and all damage or injury of any kind"
`(Margo/in v New York Life Ins. Co, 32 NY2d 149, 153, 297 NE2d 80, 344
`NYSZd 336 [1973]), although they made no mention of negligence on the
`part of the party being indemnified (bracketed matter added). Id.
`
`The relevant, operative language in the indemnity clause in the LlLCO-O’Connor
`
`contracts unambiguously requires O’Connor to indemnify LlLCO “from and against all
`
`iosses, damages, claims, liens and encumbrances, or any or all of them, arising out of
`
`or in any way connected with the work, and whatever made or incurred, including any
`
`6 As noted earlier, consistent with its weight of the evidence analysis, the jury reached
`this conclusion despite finding that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos made, sold, distributed, or
`used in connection with O’Connor’s products or equipment, and'that O’Connor failed to
`exercise reasonable care in the use and/or manipulation of asbestos containing products to
`which Plaintiff was exposed (see Jury Verdict Sheet interrogatories 4a and 4d as Exhibit A to
`Motion). in other words, based on all of the trial record evidence, the jury determined that
`O’Connor was negligent, however, its negligence was not a Substantial factor in causing
`Plaintiff‘s asbestos-related mesotheiioma (see Jury Verdict Sheet interrogatory 4e, id).
`
`Q
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX N0. 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`and all liability imposed by law and/or contract and/or custom, upon .
`
`.
`
`. [LlLCO]
`
`whether or not it be claimed or proven that there was negligence or breach of statutory
`
`duty or both upon the part of .
`
`.
`
`. [LILCO].” (bracketed matter and emphasis added).
`
`This court finds the indemnity clause “evidences a clear intent by the parties
`
`for {O’Connor} to assume all liability arising out of [its] work at [Northport]. .
`
`(emphasis and bracketed matter added), Vey v Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey,
`
`54 NY2d 221, 226 (1981).
`
`O’Connor, relying on the contractual definition of “work”, attempts to suggest that
`
`its obligation to indemnify National Grid would only occur if North’s asbestos related
`
`injuries were directly due to its own negligent acts or omissions. However, the indemnity
`
`clause does not contain any language remotely supporting this construction. Nor is
`
`there any language in the indemnity clause of the LlLCO-O’Connor contracts which
`
`would expressly vitiate O’Connor’ s legal duty to indemnify NationalGrid for North’s
`
`work-related, asbestos exposure injuries solely caused by LlLCO’s negligence (see
`
`Great Northern Ins. Co. v Interior Construct. Corp, 7 NY3d 412, 417 [2006]). Finally,
`O’Connor’s public policy argument to have the court retroactively apply GOL §5~322l1
`
`to the LlLCO-O’Connor contracts is also unavailing. Matter of New York City Asbestos
`
`Litig. (Croteau) v AC. & s, 41 mm: at 301.
`
`Based upon well established appellate precedent upholding contractual
`
`indemnification provisions comparable, it not identical to the indemnity clause in the
`
`LlLCO—O’Connor contracts, National Grid, as LlLCO’s successor—in—interest, is entitled
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2017 03:12 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 062017 03:12 P
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`‘
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 403
`
`INDEX NO. 190114/2013
`INDEX NO- 190114/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2017
`
`to fuii indemnification from O’Connor for the underlying judgment duly entered on
`
`January 28, 2015.
`
`As part of its indemnification remedies, National Grid also seeks counsei fees
`
`incurred in defending LiLC-Q against North’s product iiaoiiity ciaim. However, as aptiy
`
`noted in Gotham Partners, LP v High River Ltd. Partnership, 76 AD3d 203, 209 (15!
`
`Dept 20%“), Nationai Grid cannot tease out a contractuai right to be reimbursed its
`
`attorney’s fees from the indemnity ciause’s reference to “aii losses, damages, ciaims,
`
`iiens and encumbrances." This language is too broadiy worded and simpiy does not
`pass the Hooper test ‘see Hooper Assocs, v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487 [19891, viz,
`unmistakably oiear ianguage expressiy providing for indemnification for attorneys’ fees,
`
`if expended for LiLCO’s defense). The branch of Nationai Grid’s iv‘iotion seeking
`
`reimbursement for its attorneys’ fees is denied.
`
`Based on the foregoing, National Grid’s Motion is granted to the extent provided
`
`and O’Connor’s CrossoMotion is denied in its entirety.
`
`This constitutes this court’s Decision and Order. Courtesy copies of thisDecision
`
`and Order have been furnished to counsei for the parties.
`
`DATED: New York, New York
`
`March 13, 2015 W
`
`HON. MARTIN SHULMAN, JSC
`
`-10-
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.