Question of Fact Raised Whether an Indemnification Clause on a Scaffolding Inspection Tag Created an Enforceable (Unsigned) Indemnification Contract

In a case stemming from plaintiff’s fall from an allegedly improperly installed scaffold, a question of fact had been raised whether a tag on the scaffolding, which included an indemnification clause, evidenced an enforceable indemnification agreement:

“[A] contract may be valid even if it is not signed by the party to be charged, provided its subject matter does not implicate a statute—such as the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701)—that imposes such a requirement” … . “[A]n unsigned contract may be enforceable, provided there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound” … . “[I]n many instances the issue of whether or when an indemnification agreement came into being in the absence of a signed document will present a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact” … .

Here, in support of their respective motion and cross motion, [the parties] failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the scaffold inspection tag …, which included an indemnification clause, related to the scaffold employed by the injured plaintiff at the time of the accident and, if so, whether these parties’ words and deeds demonstrated their intent to be bound by the terms of thereof … . Murphy v Eagle Scaffolding, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04823, 2nd Dept 6-10-15