Sheerin v. Tutor Perini Corporation

Background

Richard Sheerin, a truck driver employed by Imperial Iron Works, Inc., was working at a temporary bridge construction site in the Bronx on July 16, 2015. Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation were the general contractor, and Imperial was the subcontractor responsible for work involving the temporary bridge. Sheerin testified that grease got on his boot while he was on the bridge, that he slipped while climbing into his truck, and that he fell onto the roadway. He later photographed what he described as a blob of grease and grease-related equipment on the bridge.

Sheerin sued Tutor Perini for common-law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). Tutor Perini brought third-party claims against Imperial for contractual indemnification and for failing to obtain required insurance. The parties moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents any genuine factual dispute requiring a trial.

Claims Against Tutor Perini

The court denied Tutor Perini’s motion for summary judgment on Sheerin’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim. That statute requires owners and general contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection for construction workers and to follow specific safety regulations. Sheerin relied on Industrial Code regulation § 23-1.7(d), which prohibits allowing workers to use a surface with slippery substances such as grease unless the hazard is removed, covered, or otherwise made safe.

The court held that the evidence created factual disputes about whether the temporary bridge was a covered passageway or elevated working surface, whether grease was present, and whether the grease caused Sheerin’s fall. The court also declined to decide witness credibility at the summary-judgment stage, because those decisions belong to a jury.

The court likewise denied summary judgment on Sheerin’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims to the extent they were based on a dangerous condition on the premises. Although the evidence of constructive notice was weak, the court found that a jury could decide whether Tutor Perini should have discovered the grease through reasonable inspection. The court ruled that the evidence did not support a separate theory that Tutor Perini supervised or controlled the manner and methods of Sheerin’s work. The court also stated that Sheerin had not asserted a claim against Imperial and declined to decide any unpleaded claim against Imperial.

Contractual Indemnification

Tutor Perini’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to Imperial’s obligation to pay defense costs in the underlying lawsuit. The court interpreted Section 11.3 of the subcontract as clearly requiring Imperial to defend Tutor Perini when a claim was made, even if Imperial disputed its duty to defend or indemnify. Imperial’s motion was denied as to that defense-cost issue.

The court denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions concerning indemnification for liability, damages, or losses arising from the accident. Section 11.1 required Imperial to indemnify Tutor Perini for claims arising from Imperial’s work when Imperial’s negligent act or omission contributed to the loss, while excluding indemnification for Tutor Perini’s own negligence. Because factual disputes remained about whether Imperial was negligent and whether its negligence caused the accident, the court left that issue for further proceedings.

Insurance Procurement

The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on Tutor Perini’s claim that Imperial breached the subcontract by failing to obtain the required primary, noncontributory insurance and name Tutor Perini as an additional insured. The parties disputed whether Imperial’s insurance policy and certificates of insurance satisfied the subcontract. The court found enough ambiguity in the contract and related evidence that a reasonable jury could decide for either side.

Disposition

The court denied Imperial’s motion for summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in part Tutor Perini’s motion for summary judgment: it granted the motion concerning defense costs, denied it concerning Sheerin’s claims, denied it concerning indemnification for liability, and denied it concerning the insurance-procurement claim. The court ordered all parties to file a joint pretrial order within 30 days.