Matt represented a steel contractor in a New York construction accident lawsuit arising from renovation work at a multi-unit apartment building. The general contractor commenced a third-party action seeking contractual indemnification and defense under indemnification and hold harmless provisions in the construction contract.

The court adopted Matt’s arguments and held that the contractual indemnification provisions were not triggered as a matter of law. The evidence raised material questions as to whether any accident occurred at all, and, even assuming an accident occurred, whether it was caused by any negligence on the part of the steel contractor. Because contractual indemnification in New York requires a clear causal connection between the subcontractor’s negligence and the alleged injury, the general contractor could not shift liability or defense costs to Matt’s client.

As a result, the court dismissed the general contractor’s third-party contractual indemnification claim in its entirety, eliminating exposure for defense and indemnity obligations. The decision reinforces critical principles for construction litigators and insurance professionals, including the limits of indemnification clauses, the importance of causation, and the necessity of evidentiary proof before indemnity obligations can be imposed.

Practice Impact: This ruling provides valuable guidance for insurers, claims adjusters, and construction counsel evaluating indemnification tenders, risk transfer provisions, and third-party claims in New York construction accident and Labor Law litigation.

Photo by Zoshua Colah