Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Tejada

Background

Union Mutual issued Mario Tejada a commercial liability insurance policy covering bodily injuries occurring at his property in the Bronx. The policy generally required Union Mutual to defend Tejada against covered lawsuits, but it contained exclusions for injuries connected to construction, renovation, or repair work and for injuries arising from work performed by independent contractors or subcontractors under specified circumstances.

Pablo Brito sued Tejada in New York state court, alleging that he tripped on broken floor tile at the property and was injured because of Tejada’s negligence. The state-court action remained pending. Union Mutual sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Tejada in that action. Union Mutual had assigned Tejada a defense while this federal case was pending, but it disclaimed coverage.

The Summary-Judgment Motion

Union Mutual moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case without a trial when no important facts are genuinely disputed. It argued that the policy’s renovation-work exclusion and independent-contractor/subcontractor exclusion barred coverage because Brito was injured while participating in renovation work at the property.

Union Mutual relied substantially on an account prepared by investigator Patrick Hobbins after speaking with Tejada. That account stated that Tejada, Brito, and others were engaged in renovations, removing debris, and lifting tiles, and that Brito helped with the work.

Tejada disputed both the account of events and the circumstances in which the statement was taken. He said the gathering was primarily social, with some cleanup, that no one was being paid, and that Brito was not working for or retained by him. Tejada also said he had limited English fluency, could not fully understand Hobbins’s questions, and signed an English-language statement without reading it or using a translator. Union Mutual disputed Tejada’s version.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Union Mutual had the burden to show, based on undisputed facts, that Brito’s injury arose from construction, renovation, or repair work and from work performed as an independent contractor or subcontractor. The court could not decide which conflicting account was credible on summary judgment; credibility decisions belong to the factfinder at trial.

The court rejected Union Mutual’s request to disregard Tejada’s later declaration under the “sham affidavit” doctrine. That doctrine can prevent a party from creating a false factual dispute by contradicting earlier sworn testimony. Here, however, the earlier statement was an unsworn, pre-litigation statement taken by a private investigator, without counsel. The court also found that Tejada had offered a plausible explanation for the differences, including possible language and translation problems.

The court also declined to disregard Tejada’s declaration because of his answers to the complaint. Although the court criticized the boilerplate nature of some answers, it found that the answers were not so clearly inconsistent with Tejada’s later account that they justified blocking his testimony. Union Mutual could challenge those answers at trial.

Even accepting Tejada’s account, the court found unresolved questions about whether the cleanup and informal repairs qualified as “construction, renovation or repair work” under the policy, whether Brito was an independent contractor or subcontractor, and whether Brito’s alleged injury arose from work. The policy language and the record did not establish those points as a matter of law.

Disposition

The court denied Union Mutual’s motion for summary judgment. The case will proceed to trial on all outstanding issues. The court also directed the parties to address whether there is a right to a jury trial and whether any party seeks one. The opinion did not decide the ultimate coverage question or determine which account of the events was truthful.