I don't know about you, but when I read CPLR article 16 I'm consistently reminded of Otto von Bismark's comment about sausages and law.
Today, the New York Court of Appeals in Frank v. Meadowlakes Dev. Corp. addressed whether a tortfeasor whose liability is determined to be 50% or less can be found responsible for total indemnification of non-economic loss despite CPLR article 16. The plaintiff was injured on a worksite at a building owned by Meadowlakes. He commenced a personal-injury action grounded on Labor Law sec. 240(1) against Meadowlakes and the general contractor. In turn, Meadowlakes commenced a third-party action based on contribution and indemnification against Frank's employer (Note: As the Court observes in a footnote, this action was commenced prior to 1996 Omnibus Workers Compensation Reform Act). A jury ultimately apportioned fault against Frank for 10%, the plaintiff's employer for 10%, and the general contractor for 80%. The court also directed judgment against Meadowlakes and the general contractor on the sec. 240(1) claim.
Meadowlakes settled with Frank and, thereafter, the trial awarded Meadowlakes' motion for common-law indemnification against the employer for close to $1.5 million. On appeal, the employer argued that it could only be held liable for its proportionate share of negligence and not complete indemnification of Meadowlakes. Analyzing the legislative intent of CPLR article 16, the Court agreed with the employer and held that Meadowlakes could not short-circuit Art. 16 by passing through 100% of its liability in the indemnification action given the assessment of the employer being 10% at fault.
For a clear understanding of this decision, I suggest re-reading CPLR article 16 and having it close by when reading the decision.
Comments