You are here: / / SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S...

SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suit by a general contractor (Aragon) and property lessee seeking indemnification for a settlement paid to defendant subcontractor’s (Port Richmond’s) injured employee (Brown), as well as the suit alleging the failure to procure insurance, should not have been dismissed. The court explained the relevant indemnification law:

It is well settled that “where an indemnitor does not receive notice of an action settled by the indemnitee, in order to recover reimbursement [for the settlement], [the indemnitee] must establish that [it] would have been liable and that there was no good defense to the liability”… . Conversely, “[w]here the indemnitor does receive notice of the claim against the indemnitee, . . . the general rule is that the indemnitor will be bound by any reasonable good faith settlement the indemnitee might thereafter make”… . As to notice, ” [i]t is sufficient that the party against whom ultimate liability is claimed is fully and fairly informed of the claim and that the action is pending with full opportunity to defend or to participate in the defense'” … . …

Applying these principles, we find that the motion court improperly dismissed the indemnification claim. The subcontract plainly requires indemnification for claims arising out of Port Richmond’s work on the construction project. On appeal, Port Richmond does not argue that Brown’s injuries did not arise from its work. Instead, Port Richmond contends that because the underlying action was dismissed against Aragon, plaintiffs cannot establish Aragon’s liability for those injuries. However, where notice is given, the indemnitee need not establish its own liability for the underlying claim … . There is no dispute that Port Richmond had notice of the underlying action as well as the settlement negotiations in this Court.  Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v Tower Natl. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01401, Second Dept 3-1-18

INSURANCE LAW (SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (INSURANCE LAW, SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/SETTLEMENTS (INSURANCE LAW, INDEMNIFICATION, (SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; HERE DAMAGE CAUSED BY “INTERIOR TILE” WORK WAS COVERED UNDER THE POLICY; IN PREPARING THE BATHROOM FLOOR FOR TILING THE INSURED USED WELDING EQUIPMENT WHICH CAUSED A FIRE; THE INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PREPARATORY WORK WAS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COVERAGE FOR “INTERIOR TILE” WORK (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENSE COUNSEL PROBABLY COULD HAVE WORKED OUT A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).
CENTURY-OLD ELEVATOR MUST BE REPLACED, DESPITE THE COST AND DESPITE THE APPARENT FACT THAT ONLY ONE OF FOUR TENANTS USED THE ELEVATOR (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS TRAVELING THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET AND DID NOT SLOW DOWN APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION WHERE HE COLLIDED WITH THE SIDE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (FIRST DEPT).
OHIO TRUSTEE’S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A ROYALTY AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON NEW YORK, DESPITE A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
STATE DESIGN DEFECT AND FAILURE TO WARN ACTION IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION ACT (HMTA), CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AGE DISCRIMINATION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS... THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE,...