Firm News: Gartner + Bloom

Attorneys Arthur Xanthos and William Brophy recently obtained a stunning victory on behalf of an Upper East Side co-op, that had been sued by shareholder-tenants seeking seven figures in damages due to leaks into their apartment over a span of nine years.  Specifically, the shareholder-tenants sought money for a maintenance abatement, diminution in value to the apartment, property damage, and punitive damages.  The complaint sought more than $1 million, and the settlement demand at trial was $250,000.  After trial, however, the only damages awarded amounted to a little more than $16,000.       

            Defendant 1407 Broadway Real Estate LLC (“Broadway”) is the owner of the building wherein this claim arose. Broadway holds an operating lease for the entirety of the building, located in Midtown Manhattan, New York. Defendant Cayre Grp Ltd. (“Cayre”) leases the 41st and 42nd floors of Broadway’s building, and holds a lease extension with Broadway. Plaintiff is a former employee of XCEL Interior Contracting, Inc. (“XCEL”), a third-party defendant in the action. While employed by XCEL, Plaintiff injured his hand while cutting plywood on an unprotected table saw, located on the 16th floor of Broadway’s building. Plaintiff’s injury was in the furtherance of a project undertaken by Cayre, for which XCEL was hired as a contractor.

            Pursuant to the lease extension with Broadway, Broadway was given direction and coordination over XCEL, who was one of the lease’s memorialized approved contractors (“[a]ll work done by the contractor [XCEL] must be coordinated with the Building Manager”). This lease extension also contained the following indemnity, recited in pertinent part: “Tenant shall indemnify, defend and save harmless Landlord… from and against (a) all claims of whatever nature against Landlord arising from any act, omission or negligence of Tenant, its subtenant, contractors, licensees, agents, servants, invitees, employees or visitors…”

            Broadway cross-claimed below for summary judgment as to the issue of their contractual indemnification, a claim that was not granted. The First Department reversed and found for Broadway on this issue. The Appellate Division found that this indemnity was clear and unambiguous. In response, Cayre argued that this provision required a finding of “active negligence” or fault on behalf of Cayre. The First Department disagreed with this assertion, in holding that “all that is necessary to trigger the provision is a claim arising from any act or omission of Cayre or Cayre’s contractor…” (emphasis added). Cayre’s contractor here was XCEL, employer of the Plaintiff at the time of the alleged accident. The court held that no negligence was needed to trigger the indemnity, and instead, all that was needed was work being done by Cayre or their contractors within the building leased by Broadway.

          In support of their motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of Labor Law §241(6), Defendant Cayre asserted that the 16th floor is a permanent workshop where “for the past 10 years, the… plaintiff reported to work each day….” Their argument concludes that due to these facts the 16th floor is not the statutorily protected “area[] in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed….” N.Y. Labor Law §241(6).

            In granting Cayre’s motion for summary judgment below, the Supreme Court found that the 16th floor of the building “was a permanent workshop controlled by XCEL, not a temporary staging area ancillary to the Project and controlled by Cayre.” By extension, this also released Broadway under §241(6).

            The First Department reversed and remanded for the court below, finding that “there are disputed issues of fact concerning whether the 16th floor space qualifies as a construction area.” In remanding, the Appellate Division cited such cases as Gerrish v. 56 Leonard, 147 A.D.3 511 (1st Dept. 2017) (factors for determining applicability of 241(6) are physical proximity, common ownership, and operation of off-site premises) and Gonnerman v. Huddleston, 78 A.D.3d 993 (2d Dept. 2010) (241(6) extends to areas where materials are being readied for use, contrary to areas where materials are merely stored for future use).

            Lastly, and most important for Labor Law practitioners, the First Department then reasoned that because §241(6) would apply if the saw had been utilized on the 41st floor, the Plaintiff should not have an “automatic loss of the protections afforded by the statute” because Plaintiff chose instead to cut the wood on the 16th floor, and then bring it up to the 41st floor in an elevator.

            Application of this trigger to indemnity warrants widespread consideration across the legal universe. The analysis of Labor Law §241(6) by the First Department should be applied by insurance carriers and Labor Law practitioners to all future cases concerning the Section. Insurers should be aware that the designation of a physical area as a construction area is increasingly subject to more liberal interpretations – especially in regards to defense-side summary judgments motions.

            On October 10, 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed the “continuous-trigger” theory of insurance coverage in Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, __ N.J. Super. __, Docket No. A-5415-15T3 (App. Div. Oct. 10, 2017). The Court found that the continuous trigger theory of insurance coverage applies “to third-party liability claims involving progressive damage to property caused by an insured’s allegedly defective construction work” and that the “last pull” of the trigger for ascertaining the end of a covered occurrence “happens when the essential nature and scope of the property damage first becomes known, or when one would have sufficient reason to know of it.” Id. (slip op. at 3).

            The insured, Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (“Air Master”), was hired as a subcontractor to perform heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) work at a condominium building project. Between November 2005 and April 2008, Air Master installed condenser units on the roof and HVAC devices within each unit. Air Master also had a number of Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policies during and after this work, including a policy through Penn National Insurance Company in effect from about June 22, 2014 through June 22, 2009, a policy through Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) effective June 22, 2009 through June 22, 2012, and a policy from Harleysville Insurance Company (“Harleysville”) covering June 22, 2012 through June 22, 2015.

            In the beginning of 2008, unit owners began to notice water infiltration in their individual units. Specifically, by February 2008, as reported in a news article, at least one unit owner noticed leaks in the walls and windows of his unit. A May 3, 2010 expert consultant report found roof damage caused by moisture from water infiltration, and recommended removal and replacement of those damaged areas of the roof. That expert was unable to determine when the moisture infiltration occurred. Individual unit owners and the condominium association filed suit against the project’s developer and other defendants for property damage, and those defendants brought third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Air Master.

            Air Master sought defense and indemnity from its insurers under its CGL policies, and filed a declaratory judgment action against both Selective and Harleysville when those insurers disclaimed coverage. Selective’s CGL policy stated, in part, that the policy provided coverage for property damage occurring “during the policy period.” The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The policy also defined “property damage” as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it.” “Property damage” included the “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured” and that loss “shall be deemed to occur at the time of the ‘occurrence’ that caused it.” Id. (slip op. at 7).

            Selective moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy did not cover water damage that materialized or manifested before the policy coverage began in June 2009. Air Master opposed that motion, arguing that the continuous-trigger theory of coverage applied and that coverage continued until the “last pull” of the trigger of injury occurs. Air Master also argued that manifestation occurs when it is known, or reasonably knowable, that damage is attributable to the work of the insured, which occurred in May 2010 with the issuing of the expert report. The trial judge granted summary judgment, ultimately finding that while the continuous-trigger theory of coverage applied, the damage manifested prior to the start of Selective’s policy period. Air Master appealed that determination.[1]

            On appeal, the Appellate Division also found that the continuous-trigger doctrine applies to claims for third-party, progressive property damage in construction defect litigation. “[T]he continuous-trigger theory recognizes that, because certain harms … will progressively develop over time, ‘the date of the occurrence should be the continuous period from exposure to manifestation.’” Id. (slip op. at 12) (quoting Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Insurance Co., 138 N.J. 437, 454-56 (1994)) (applying the continuous-trigger theory in the context of property damage claims arising from the installation of asbestos-related products). “Under such a continuous-trigger approach, ‘all the insurers over that period [are] liable for the continuous development’” of the damage. Id. (quoting Owens-Illinois, Inc., 138 N.J. at 450-51). “[T]he continuous-trigger approach requires multiple successive insurers up to the point of manifestation to cover a loss,” which the Court noted provides more coverage for claims and encourages insurers to monitor developing risks. Id. (slip op. at 13) (citing Owens-Illinois, Inc., 138 N.J. at 458-59). The Appellate Division stated that the doctrine was not unfair to insurers, but instead required them to bear a portion of the coverage burden that accumulated while the property harm had not yet manifested, as occurs in construction defect litigation where defects are not immediately obvious. Id. (slip op. at 17) (citing The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc. v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, __ N.J. __, Docket No. A-101/102/103/104-15 (2017) (slip op. at 34)).

            The Appellate Division also held that the “last pull” or “end” point of coverage under the continuous-trigger theory occurs when there is an “essential” manifestation of the injury, which is the “revelation of the inherent nature and scope of that injury.” Id. (slip op. at 25). That manifestation does not require that the damage be shown to be attributable to the conduct of a specific insured, as such an analysis would be highly fact-dependent and require lengthy discovery to determine. Id. (slip op. at 19). Instead, the “last pull” should be “a date of initial manifestation that is common to all parties – regardless of which contractor or subcontractor may be ‘at fault’ for the occurrence.” Id. (slip op. at 21).

            Using the above analysis, the Court determined that while the continuous-trigger doctrine applied to the third-party, progressive property damage claims asserted in the construction defect litigation, the “last pull” or “essential” manifestation could not be determined by the record presented on appeal. Specifically, it was unclear what defects were or reasonably could have been revealed between the time of the first unit owner’s complaint in February 2008 and the start of Selective’s CGL policy in June 2009.

            The application of the continuous-trigger doctrine to third-party, progressive property damage claims in New Jersey construction defect litigation impacts insurers who may be held liable for occurrences that would otherwise be outside the insured’s policy period. It also, as noted by the Appellate Division, distributes risk to several insurers which may have the impact of resolving claims earlier in litigation through settlement. Insurers will need to be aware that occurrences outside of the policy period may still result in risk on the policy under this ruling.

[1] Harleysville also obtained summary judgment and Air Master did not appeal that determination.  

Plaintiff made the traditional summary judgment motion, supported by an expert affidavit from a professional engineer who opined that the stairs were "not in compliance with good and accepted standards of construction site safety and practice", that slippery conditions on stairways should be eliminated before use, and that the stairs in question were smaller, narrower, more worn, and steeper than typical stairs.  The expert concluded that these conditions coupled with the fact that the stairs were wet due to rain created a dangerous condition that was not in compliance with good and accepted standards of construction site safety and created a significant risk of slipping on the stairs and of thus falling down the stairs.

In opposition, defendants submitted affidavits from a construction safety expert, who disagreed with plaintiff’s expert, and opined that the staircase was designed for both indoor and outdoor use and provided traction acceptable within industry standards and practice in times of inclement weather. He further disagreed that the steps were too narrow, or that the step treads had been worn down.  He noted that the staircase provided both perforated holes to allow rain to pass through and raised metal nubs for traction.  He concluded that these anti-slip measures were sufficient. The defendants’ expert also opined that the use of both handrails could have helped prevent plaintiff's fall.

Not surprisingly, the lower court and the appellate division ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the motion.  The Court of Appeals, however, reversed plaintiff’s summary judgment award.  The Court’s primary rationale was the following:  the mere fact a plaintiff falls from a height on a construction site does not give rise to automatic Labor Law 240(1) liability, and where the defendants raise questions of fact as to whether a safety device (in the O’Briencase, the staircase) provided adequate protection to the plaintiff, summary judgment is not warranted.

While this decision and rationale is not a technical rewrite of Labor Law 240(1), it does mark a sea change in what presumptions the lower courts should make in analyzing these motions.  Heretofore, the process with some exceptions has been maddeningly difficult for the defense, because once a court heard that a plaintiff had fallen from a height and was injured, the court presumed – regardless of contradicting expert affidavits -- that inadequate safety devices were in place.  In other words, courts have been utilizing the fact of the fall to impose automatic liability. 

O’Brien counsels the courts against making that presumption.

                                                     -APX 5/26/17

In a recent New Jersey decision, this Firm succeeded in obtaining partial summary judgment in a construction defect case, dismissing multiple causes of action and claims against our client.  With this decision, the Court dismissed over 98% of the Plaintiff’s claimed damages of $6.1 million asserted against our client. The case is Views at Hudson Pointe Condominium Association v. K. Hovnanian at Hudson Pointe, LLC, et al., venued in Superior Court, Hudson County.

  

In the Views at Hudson Pointe case, Plaintiff condominium association claims significant construction defects in a large residential condominium complex located on the shores of the Hudson River in North Bergen, New Jersey.  Our client, a concrete subcontractor, is alleged to have been responsible for concrete cracking and piping deficiencies in the two on-site garages.  As part of a plan to repair the alleged cracking, Plaintiff’s expert opined that an expensive traffic coating would be needed in each garage, at an approximate cost of $5.8 million dollars.

Through discovery, the following was determined: (1) the garage plans provided to our client did not include a traffic coating; (2) our client was not contracted to put down such a coating; (3) our client was not retained to design the garages, only to construct them; (4) no one ever requested our client to install a traffic coating; (5) Plaintiff’s expert stated that the inclusion of a traffic coating would have been a “better design” for the garages; and (6) multiple parties acknowledged that our client had no role in the installation of piping, and that the claimed deficiencies were the responsibility of the piping contractor.

Accordingly, we moved for summary judgment at the close of discovery, on the grounds that the installation of a traffic coating was an obligation not found in the contract and for which Plaintiff could not recover.  In granting this portion of the motion, the Court found it clear that the traffic coating had not been part of the original plans for the garages.  Furthermore, the Court found that our client had no role in the design of the garages, and therefore, could not be held responsible for the proposed cost of installing such a coating.  Therefore, the Court limited the Plaintiff’s recoverable damages against our client to the cost of repairing the cracks in the garages with concrete filler, which Plaintiff’s own expert estimated at approximately $100,000.00 dollars.  

The Court also dismissed the claims relating to piping in the garages, stating that the evidence clearly showed that our client played no role in this work.

This decision highlights that a Plaintiff in a construction defect matter may only recover damages that provide them with the benefit of the bargain – in this case, two garages without a traffic coating.  A Plaintiff in this type of action is not entitled to receive a better building than was envisioned by the plans.  

It is common for condominium association experts in construction defect cases to inflate the cost to repair the alleged defects by inserting items that substantially improve upon the design of a particular building.  With this decision, the Court affirmed that a plaintiff will not be permitted to inflate its damages estimates in order to improve a building with upgraded designs and/or materials.