In re Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc.
140 F. Supp. 3d 324
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- In Dec. 2010 Jose Ayala fell from a barge (Hughes 660) into the Hudson River; he alleges the barge was jolted by the tug Bruce Russell causing his fall.
- Plaintiffs sued Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc. (owner/bareboat charterer of the Bruce Russell), Tutor Perini (general contractor and Ayala’s employer), Hughes (owner of the barge), and Tri-State; claims included negligence, NY Labor Law, general maritime law, and the Jones Act.
- Bridge, Hughes, and Tutor Perini filed limitation/exoneration petitions under the Limitation of Liability Act; various indemnity crossclaims arose, centered on a Subcontract Agreement between Bridge and Tutor Perini.
- Plaintiffs settled with Hughes, Tri-State, and Tutor Perini; the release expressly preserved claims and cross-claims against Bridge for direct negligence.
- Disputed factual issues remain about whether the tug captain was unlicensed and whether Bridge (via its captain or owner) was negligent; the release excluded Bridge from the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ayala’s release bars his direct negligence claims against Bridge (res judicata) | Ayala: release did not resolve direct claims against Bridge; he pleaded direct negligence. | Bridge: settlement with Tutor Perini precludes claims against Bridge under res judicata/Soto. | Denied for Bridge. Release expressly preserved claims against Bridge; direct negligence remains triable. |
| Whether Bridge must contractually indemnify Tutor Perini for liability (Section 11.1) | Tutor Perini: Section 11.1 requires indemnification for claims caused in whole/part by Bridge. | Bridge: indemnity does not cover independent claims of Bridge’s own negligence. | Denied for Bridge. Section 11.1 covers liabilities caused in whole or in part by Bridge; factual disputes preclude summary disposition. |
| Whether Bridge must indemnify Tutor Perini for defense costs (Section 11.3) | Tutor Perini: Section 11.3 unambiguously requires Bridge to pay defense costs once a claim is made, regardless of fault. | Bridge: law of the case or need to show Bridge-caused costs to trigger duty. | Granted for Tutor Perini. Section 11.3 creates an independent duty to defend/pay defense costs upon claim. |
| Whether Pennsylvania Rule shifts burden because captain was unlicensed | Ayala: unlicensed captain triggers Pennsylvania Rule shifting burden to defendants to disprove causation. | Bridge: factual disputes remain about causation and relevance of license; not dispositive. | Denied for Ayala. Application of Pennsylvania Rule depends on factual findings at trial; summary judgment inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs. L.P., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (summary judgment in Second Circuit; inferences against movant)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (res judicata and claim preclusion purposes)
- The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1874) (Pennsylvania Rule; burden-shifting for statutory violators)
- In re Moran Towing Corp., 984 F. Supp. 2d 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (practice of limitation/concursus and two-step limitation analysis)