Great Northern Insurance Company v. Laboz

Background

Albert Laboz undertook an extensive renovation of his unit in a cooperative residential building. Laboz hired M&R Construction Group, Inc. as the general contractor, and M&R hired Alba Services, Inc. as the demolition subcontractor. Their indemnification agreements provided, among other things, that Laboz would be indemnified for damage caused in whole or in part by M&R’s or Alba’s negligence, and that M&R would be indemnified for damage caused in whole or in part by Alba’s negligence.

During demolition, Alba was assigned to open a wall so isolation valves could be installed on a water riser behind it. Alba’s foreman testified that he instructed an Alba employee to remove plaster and lath and that both knew the building’s water had not been shut off and the riser was live. While the employee was working alone, a pipe broke and water spread throughout the unit. The court’s prior order found that the evidence showed Alba struck the pipe and caused it to break. The resulting damage to a unit several floors below was about $1.3 million, and that unit was insured by Great Northern Insurance Company, which brought this action as subrogee of Arunesh Hari and Ranjana Hari.

Earlier Summary-Judgment Order

In February 2024, the court ruled on several summary-judgment motions. It denied Great Northern’s motion against Laboz, granted Laboz’s cross-motion against Great Northern, granted Laboz’s motion on his indemnification claims against M&R and Alba, and granted M&R’s motion for conditional summary judgment against Alba. In resolving the latter two motions, the court needed only to find that Alba was at least partly negligent in causing the pipe to break.

Alba’s Motion for Reconsideration

Alba moved for reconsideration of the negligence determination. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or material information, when there has been a change in controlling law, when new evidence is available, or when correction is needed to prevent clear error or manifest injustice. A reconsideration motion cannot be used to repeat rejected arguments, present arguments that could have been made earlier, or obtain a second decision on the merits.

The court noted that Alba filed the motion twenty-one days after the earlier order, although the applicable local rule required service within fourteen days. The court nevertheless considered the motion on the merits because the other parties had not raised the deadline issue.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Alba’s argument that the negligence finding was premature. It relied on four undisputed facts: Alba was assigned to open the wall, knew a pipe was behind the wall, knew the pipe was live, and had an employee who struck the pipe, causing it to break.

The court also rejected Alba’s reliance on testimony from an M&R supervisor and Alba’s expert stating that Alba was not negligent. It explained that witnesses may not provide legal conclusions, and such conclusions do not create a genuine factual dispute sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

The type of tool Alba used did not change the analysis. Whether the employee used a hammer, sledgehammer, or another tool had no bearing on the facts supporting the negligence determination.

The court again rejected Alba’s argument that improper soldering caused the pipe to fail. It explained that an act that triggers or worsens a preexisting condition can still be a cause of the resulting injury. The pipe had remained functional for approximately fifty years before Alba struck it, and the evidence—including Alba’s contemporaneous report and testimony from witnesses and experts—showed that Alba’s contact caused the break. The court concluded that any soldering defect would not absolve Alba from responsibility.

The court also rejected Alba’s argument that the pipe’s placement in the wall was a hidden defect that could not have been discovered through reasonable inspection. Testimony relied on by Alba indicated that the piping was clearly visible extending from the wall. Alba identified no evidence disputing that fact.

Disposition

The court concluded that Alba offered no valid reason to reconsider the prior decision. It denied Alba’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 148 and 152.