Certain issues that fall within the interstices arise when dealing with common-law and contractual indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law sec. 11. The attorneys in Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. State of New York graciously forwarded copies of their appellate briefs (the appeal has been argued and is awaiting decision in the Appellate Division, First Department).
In this case, the owner and the proprietorship commenced a third-party action against the injured worker's employer, claiming that common-law and contractual indemnification existed. The employer had a CGL policy with Transcontinental and the State Insurance Fund insured the employer for Workers' Compensation and employer's liability. Thus, when Supreme Court held that the injured worker had experienced a "grave injury," a conflict arose between the insurers on whether to pursue an appeal on the "grave injury" issue.
To summarize these issues in a post proves impossible; therefore, please refer these briefs for some insight to a novel issue:
Transcontinental's Appellant's Brief: Download appellant_brief.pdf
The State of New York's Respondent's Brief: Download sif_opening_brief_8708.doc
Download title_page_trans.doc Download toc_toa_trans.doc
Trancontinental's Reply Brief: Download reply_brief_for_appellant.pdf
Thomas R. Esposito, Joseph D'Ambrosio and Kyle M. Medley of Ford, Marrin, Esposition, Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P. represent Transcontinental.
Michael J. Hutter, Jr. of Powers & Santola, LLP represents the State.
The State of New York's Reply Brief: Download sif_reply_brief_8909.doc
Comments