Court Opinion

ID: 9711350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:29:49.921438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.975365
License: Public Domain

Read, J.
(dissenting). The Legislature adopted the Omnibus *434Workers’ Compensation Reform Act in 1996 to shield employers from third-party indemnification or contribution claims except in the limited circumstances of a “grave injury,” or for a claim “based upon a provision in a written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer expressly agreed to contribution to or indemnification of the claimant or person asserting the cause of action for the type of loss suffered” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 [emphasis added]). Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “express” as
“1 a: directly, firmly, and explicitly stated <my express orders> b: EXACT, PRECISE
“2 a: designed for or adapted to its purpose b: of a particular sort: SPECIFIC <for that express purpose>” (at 410 [10th ed 1997]).
As amicus New York State Builders Association, Inc., points out, however, the language in the indemnification provision of the agreement between the parties in this case “is substantially similar to that used ... in form-documents prepared by The American Institute of Architects (ALA) and widely used and accepted throughout the construction industry.” To he precise, the basis for the provision is A401-1997, issued for publication in October 1997. This type of generic indemnification, drafted for use nationwide in states without any equivalent to our rule in Dole v Dow Chem. Co. (30 NY2d 143 [1972]), does not clearly and unambiguously signal an employer’s express agreement for purposes of section 11. Surely the employer must explicitly agree to indemnify for claims against which it would be safeguarded by section 11 unless there is a grave injury. Otherwise, section ll’s promise of relief from third-party actions is illusory for large categories of employers—such as subcontractors—that routinely enter into contracts with standard form indemnifications. The Legislature cannot have intended or contemplated this result when it created an exception from the refuge of section 11 for an express agreement to forgo its protection. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and R.S. Smith concur with Chief Judge Kaye; Judge Read dissents in a separate opinion.
Order reversed, etc.