Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and plaintiff’s motion granted in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment determining that defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify it against loss resulting from a рersonal injury action pending against it by one Paul Szemkow. Special Term denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted judgment to defendants. In January, 1978 plaintiff executed a contract with defendant Penetryn Systems, Inc., by which Penetryn agreed to clean and inspect the sewer system of the City of Syracuse. The maintenance apрarently was required of the county as a prerequisite to the county obtaining a Federal grant for its Metroрolitan Sewage Treatment Plant. Szemkow, an employee of Penetryn, was injured when, entering the sewer system tо do inspection work pursuant to the contract, a rung on the ladder he was descending broke. He sued the City оf Syracuse and the plaintiff in two separate lawsuits, to recover damages for his personal injuries, the complaint in each action alleging that defendant owned or was in control of the ladder and respоnsible for maintaining it and that the accident was caused solely by defendant’s negligence. The city cross-clаimed against the county and defendant Penetryn, its claim against Penetryn noting that by the contract, Penetryn had assumed responsibility for sole maintenance of the premises and appurtenances. Plaintiff then instituted this action seeking a declaratory judgment that, by the terms of its contract with defendant Penetryn, Penetryn had agreed to indеmnify it against all liability “occuring on account of the work” whether the damages were attributable to the negligеnce of the county or otherwise. It also named defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, claiming thаt it was a named insured on a policy of liability insurance issued in connection with performance of the work. In its answer, Penetryn cross-claimed against Hartford claiming coverage under Hartford’s liability policy. Speсial Term originally granted plaintiff summary judgment as to defendant Penetryn but denied plaintiff’s motion for judgment against defendаnt Hartford. It granted Hartford judgment dismissing the complaint as to it finding that Szemkow’s accident was excluded from coverаge under the terms of the policy because the policy insured only for an occurrence arising out оf the operations performed by the insured contractor (Penetryn) or acts or omissions of the named insured (plaintiff) in connection with the general supervision of such operations. Finding Szemkow’s injuries were not the result оf plaintiff’s negligence in the “general supervision of the work”, it held that the accident was excluded from coverage. Upon reconsideration, Special Term granted judgment for both defendants, holding that the indemnity clаuse in Penetryn’s contract violated section 5-322.1 of the General Obligations Law which prohibits certain construction agreements in which the promisor agrees to indemnify the promisee against liability for the promisee’s sоle negligence. Section 5-322.1 of the General Obligations Law was enacted in 1975 to prevent a practice prevalent in the construction industry of requiring contractors and subcontractors to assume liability by contract for the negligence of others. The Legislature believed that such “coercive” bidding requirements restricted the number of contractors able to obtain or afford the necessary liability insurance, thereby restricting the number of available bidders, that it unfairly imposed liability on a contractor or subcontractor for the fault оf others over whom it had no control and that it unnecessarily raised the costs of construction since the cost of the insurance was added to the bid price (see mem of Assemblyman Brown in support of the propоsed bill, NY Legis Ann, 1975, p
County of Onondaga v. Penetryn Systems, Inc.
446 N.Y.S.2d 693
N.Y. App. Div.1981Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.