Ford Marrin » Construction & Labor Law Litigation

The Firm has represented architects, builders, contractors, developers, engineers and owners in all types of complex litigation involving such issues as breach of warranties, failure to perform, force majeure, construction defects, business interruption and enforcement of escalation provisions. Construction industry clients represented by the Firm include Fortune 500 companies, national contractors, major manufactures of construction specialty products and municipalities and other governmental units. The Firm has substantial experience and expertise representing landowners, construction managers, and contractors in high-exposure construction-related litigation, including both bodily injury and property damage claims.

We have successfully defended our clients in a large number of claims arising under New York Labor Law Section 240(1), at both the trial and appellate level. Through our defense of our clients against Labor Law Section 240(1) we have played an important role in developing the law so as to limit the reach of these claims. For example, in obtaining the dismissal of a multi-million dollar Labor Law Section 240(1) claim on behalf of one of our clients, we established that Labor Law 240(1) did not extend to injuries sustained by a worker from a defective ladder when the ladder was knowingly defective and there was a properly functioning ladder in the immediate vicinity which the worker could have used.

Representative Matters

Obtained defense verdict on behalf of client in liability portion of case in which plaintiff ultimately obtained $33M damages verdict in NY Labor Law case. McComber v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
Obtained summary judgment in Labor Law action where injured worker fell from ladder resulting in four spinal fusion surgeries based on our argument that the ladder was not defective. Neuman v. IBM, 880 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Sup. Ct., Dut. Cty. 2009).
Obtained summary judgment dismissing Labor law 240(1) claim where injured worker fell on a worksite ramp. Lupo v. Pro Foods, LLC., et al., 2009 NY Slip Op 30389U (N.Y. Cty, 2009), aff’d 68 A.D.3d 607, 891 N.Y.S.2d 372 (1st Dep’t 2010).
Anti-subrogation rule barred claim against our client for $6M in settlement of an underlying wrongful death claim. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 372 Fed. Appx. 107 (2d Cir. 2010).
Anti-subrogation rule did not bar common law indemnity claims triggering coverage under another insurer’s policy. Martinez v. Colasanto Construction, Inc. 26 Misc. 3d 1206 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).
Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a $1.3M default judgment on late notice grounds. Nubatovsky v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 00660 (2d Dep’t, 2011).
Appellate Division holds that cross-liability exclusion barred coverage in connection with an underlying Labor Law case. 385 Third Avenue Assocs. v. Metropolitan Metals Corp., 81 A.D3d 475 (1st Dep’t 2011).
Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of claim for coverage in connection with underlying Labor Law claim on rescission grounds based on policyholder’s material misrepresentation during application process. Sirius American Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 81 A.D.3d 562 (1st Dep’t 2011).
Appellate Division reversed trial court decision and awarded summary judgment based on express terms of cross-liability exclusion. Transcontinental Contracting, Inc. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2087 (NJ App. Div. 2010).