Plaintiff was injured while working on a vessel owned by a defendant when an employee of the New York Container Terminal, LLC (NYCT) lowered a container on him. NYCT’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. NYCT provided insurance coverage for payment of Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWHA) benefits to plaintiff. And NYCT demonstrated it was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer:
The evidence demonstrated that any action against NYCT in relation to the plaintiff’s accident was barred by the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (hereinafter the LHWCA) because NYCT provided insurance coverage for the payment of LHWCA benefits to the plaintiff … . Moreover, NYCT provided sufficient evidence that it was the alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
“[O]nce an employer fulfills its obligations under the [LHWCA] by paying out benefits to the injured LHWCA employee, further tort-based contribution from the employer is foreclosed” … . Therefore, [plaintiff’s employer] cannot maintain contribution or contractual indemnification claims against NYCT … and [plaintiff’s employer’s] proposed cross claims against NYCT would be palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . Morales v Hapag-Lloyd AG. (America), 2015 NY Slip Op 09079, 2nd Dept 12-9-15
MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:
WORKER’S COMPENSATION (FEDERAL LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT)/FEDERAL LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT