Koulermos v A. 0. Smith Water Prods.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Koulermos v A. 0. Smith Water Prods. 2017 NY Slip Op 32456(U) November 9, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 190406/2016 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 .' ...., +• . • :. ~. - ' .. -' ... ' _ " _, . .· ..- ' .; ,·' ,,; .. •" -:· ., ':· SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ,, COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART: 4 E5 ~: :~ f ·; :: .... < ---------:- -~ -,.:,; -·--- .-.- f. -:: -:- -- ·~._-:~ ;_-~~-'.:- - :.~~- -·-,x _ .. ,_ _ PETER KOULERMOS ~ - as Executor.· bf the Estate of MICHAEL~ KOULERMOS I~ beceaseci,'and MARION KOU!:iERMOS,. ,I.n~~~,ldua)ly, ..• - -~· .., . ''~ -~ ·/ . I.r1.dex No. 19.0406/2016 PlaintifJs :· ,• ~ . ·- ... -· ~ against ./ ~. ,- .. •.- .. ' _-;. .DECISION AND ORDER . ~.-,., RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 ;~- .: ,· INDEX NO. 190406/2014 •' ' A. 0. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS J.. et._ a1·: - . .; . ",. _ I 1• ·';Defendants•· - - - -'- - - :- - .,.. ~- - . ;_ - '- :..:: LUCY BILLINGS I . ·· __ J ~ :- ":c. -: .:. :. -- ~ '- ,... -' .:. ·-::.-'- ~ ~ ~ .:. '::. '... ~ ::_ ~ . J. s ~ c. ·:' .~· • . ;; . .. ,· ..-. . 'i'.'> "' ·" - Defendants Nati~na1· Grfd. USA -'and· National ·Grid USA Service ., . ~ Company,' Inc_. I ~ move to reargue,, motion for summary ·judgme.rit 'bn S'.P,,L~R: 2221 ·§ (d)~; thefr prior 't~eir br~:i'ss-~la,ims'' against .• defendants Courter'.& Company, Inc:,. Inc. , and Treadweli Corporation< . . ._, Thoma~ O' coTI:nor I i & co- Company, - -.: for~ attorneys,· fee's' incurred in .· - defending plaintiffs' claims:· •C.P'.L.R. : ·~ .- •. . h' 3212(b)·. --.'fhe 'court §. ' (Moulton, J.) .deinie_d that motion 'for summary 'jljdgment in an order dated June 12, 2017. · I. . <-··, .. THE CONTRACTS •' "'- .f.,. ~ The contracts between the· Nati~nal Grid de'fendants and each of the three co-defendants .on which the . ,. defendants fe~s ref~r.to the National rely to.entitie them to attorneys' - Naticn~al: Grid , Grid defendants -as, "the Cotnpany;,,:.~n,d each c.0.~defendant as "the . " ~. . . ... ~· . ~ '. i .,, . Contractor. " ·.-The contracts provide that:•_ · __ · · ,. •• • < • • • • .. " • :-~. • • • ~ : •• . The Cont~actor hereby D.ndertakes and ·.agrees ·to indemnify and hold harmless~ the Company .· • , . ·._ from and .. agains·t all· losses, damages; - claims- .._·. '.~· arising out of or in any way connected with ·the work . · . .. ;·. and in any case, ~ I _ ., ·.. koulrmos.189 ~ /"',,,,. . , . 1 ·... '~. · : ' . ·'." - - ' - 2 of 8 _ [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 . ·- - ~· '· : -,:: '+ I•'~ RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 . • -~. .. ~ . ~ ,. . -. ·.• : :-~. ... · INDEX NO. 190406/2014 ...- ' ~ - -~ .- the Company: shall-, ha~-: the :~ight to- demand that· the Contractor shall undertake to 'defend · all claims whether justified,. or. not~.· ,::--· ~. ;_ again~t. the ' Gompany . .. -< - " Aff. of Johl"l; J. ·Burbridge Ex.;A;>Exs-.'K-M-a~t-:xx' .. The contracts : .. · , ,_•, t~ define "work'' as_ ·:things herein agreed ·.'.,!-.'.'~-·-l· . . . . ·. be f-urn:i-she:d or done by . ,o··~··~·-·· ,-_ ~.; or on the, part ?f·. the· C~ontrac;tc:;:S: ·~: . .. :td. ~:i;:t .. II:. -, . Thus . co-defend.ant· con~ractofs, ;. ' •, .,._ .• ,~ ' ~· <." -~'·) obliga,~iori · to-.·indemnify ,,·':· · \ ._ -· ,,.> ,< • • the • National Grid defe.ndants .·is only; wJ;ien ·tl1.e-~National Grid _ ., ' defendants plaintiffs l?S~ ~ incl~ding . I ,, def~nd the if costs 'incurred '-to ' .t . , -' cialmf3, arises . frorri·'or' is connected with the . . - "" . I - ~ - contractors'. work:·::;Matter ;of Ne~ Y~rk- c.ity Asbestos Litig. '· 142 A.D.3d 408, 410· (1st Dep't 2d16H N'igri v.·· Liber~y Apparel Co., . , Broadcasting ·cos~, (l st 1 Inc., 76 A. D. 3d _842, .844 . Di~~rn~ ·nep' .t': 2010) ;.. ~ 200 .A.D. 2d ·267:, ;;269'-70, (ist v. ·American ·n~p' t 1994);. ' Breed, Abbott Morgan v. Hulko, . ·. 139 A.D:2d .71, 73.-74' (1st Dep't ' - . -. , . . .. :. . . . , & 1988) . ~ ' - ,· ...... ·-.. ' ·. - The N~tiohal Grid deferidants' -right to de~and a defense, ·.· ... ' ';· I. ·"'·; distinct from .their ..right'tobe : indemni.fied- . for defense' costs . - \ ' . ·.. ~ ·, .,_ ; ~ ·, .( ~ ~ that the National Grid defendants have. incurr~d, :1.s whenever a claim is made against the Company,-whetherthe c'laim·is justified . or not. ., ·. - .; . . . : -~ • " I ·; t ··~ The contracts'-- ensuing. ·p·a~a~r'aph c~n:f irms the interpretation . that the National;_ Grid defendants' are not:.-automatically entitled to indemnif icati.c?n for fees incurred in d~f~nd.il"l;g· ·all. claims, .· whether justified.or not. - ··~· .. ,,,"\• In case any such·claim,or claims shall be made against the Company . · , the amount of such claim or claims, together with.a. sum estimated to cover interest and costs, may be retained by· the Compariy··.out of ariy monies due or thereafter growing·due to the Contractor'. . as security for the payment .9f:such_claim or claims.· Upon - .' - ->, ... koulrmos, is 9. ·. · ·; · · '. ··~ ·-· . ~\ ._· .. - . ... - - ',: 3 of 8 ~-... - .. . [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 3] ;. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 INDEX NO. 190406/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 . · . .· : receipt of ~rit,ten 'notification by the· Insurer under. the Protective Liability Policy' or by· the· Insurer providing contractual. coverage'· furnished to the Compariy pursuant .to the terms of this Agreement . . · , 'that the Insurer will defend said claim or claims and that if and when the liability of the Company , · .. : has be'en .·fully established by a court . . . . said Insurer will pay,, the claim: or claims together'with interest and costs, the Company will . . . . release t? t!ie Contractor any .monies ret_ained . I Burbridge Aff. Ex. A, Exs. K-M art.~ XX ·(emphases added). the National _Grid defendants I Thus remedy to secure co-'defendant ·' contractors' payment for losses incurred due to plaintiffs' :' claims against the National Grid. defendants;· 1:f and when owe'd,· was to retain an estimated amount of those losses from any ' further payments owed by the National Grid.defendants to co~ defendants. For the first time~ either in'ihi~ motio~ or .in their prior ,' <' motion for summary ·judgment;, the' National Grid 'defendants, in reply to the opposition to this· motion, rely 6n their demand to co-defendants that co-defendants~ insurer procured under their contracts defend the.National Grid defendants against plaintiffs' claims. This new :basis for· the' :National qr id,: defendants' cl~im ' for indemni.f ication of their: attorheys' ?•v ' fees is not now grounds·. for re argument,· of course, both because the demand was not grounds for their prior motion.for summary judgment, Olingswan v. Chase Home Fin.,·LLC, 104 A.D.3d543;'544 (lst . Dep't 2_013); Tounkara v. Fernicola, 63 A~D.3d'64~, 649 (lit Dep~t 2009)_; DeSoignies v. cornasesk House Tenants'. Corp;;· 2LA.D. 3d· 715, 718 (1st Dep't 2005).; F~isenda v. X Large Enters;~ 280 A.D.2d 514, 515 (1st Dep't 2001), ·nor raised in support of their motion for koulrmos.189 . 3. 4 of 8 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 4] . NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 reargument. ~ INDEX NO. 190406/2014 .. ~ ... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 Sylla v. Brickyard Inc., ... 104 A.D:3d.605, 606 (1st Dep't 2013); Calcano v. Rodriguez; 1.0~. A.J?:3d:.496, ·491 .<,1st Dep't 2013); Martinez v. Nguyen, .102 .A.D.3d _?55.,_ ·556 (1st Dep't 2013); , i . .. • ' . ,t JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. 576 (1st ·nep't 2012). ~· '· " : . • ' L~xor __ ... ' " ' Capital, LLC, 101-A,D.3d 575, In any event, even if the National Grid defendants did demand a defense by co-defendants' insurer, the ·' ,' , National Grid defendants were entitled tq a d~fense only if the insurer notified them that it would defend them againstplaintiffs' claims. The contract did not_obligate co-defendants to assume the National Grid defendants_' ·defense. allowed them· instead to reJe~t -·The contract the· demand .,and_ await ·a. determination establishing th«it plaintif_fs' claim, the deceased . .. .. Michael Kouleimos's_exposure to asbestos, arose .from or was_ connected with co-defendants' _work at .the -injury site: 2 of a power station in Northport,.NewYork. City Asbestos Litig., 142 A.D. 3d at 410. Unit 1 or 'Matter of New York Then, upon such a' determination, co::..defendants' obligation is actually to indemnify the National Grid defendants, ··for both their· liability and their defense costs. II. ,· -... THE LAW OF THE CASE Before the National.Grid defendants moved for summary judgment I Courter & Company I Tho~as 0 .corinor -& Company I I and Treadwell Corporation each moved· for summary judgment dismis.sing the National Grid defendants' cross-claims against each of these three co-defendants. In denying· courter & Company's and Treadwell Corporation's motions, .the court already fou:qd factual koulrmos.189 •. · 4 ,' 5 of 8 .......... \ [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 5] .·,·.-r __ , INDEX NO. 190406/2014 .. ·.\- NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 questions regarding when Michael Koulermos worked at Units 1 and 2 of the power station _in Northport and whether his.;work thus coincided with or followed and also was in.the vi6inity -0f those defendants' _instal1ation of boiler equipm_~nt ~sing -pr_oducts with . asbestos. c . . - - , Koulermos v. A.«:5. - Smith water Prods., 13f A.D.3d 575, 576 (1st Dep' t 2016). - In denying Thomas -:_O_' Connor .. &. Company's . . . . ~ motion, the court,"'· .~iso fourid· f~c:tuai que:st-icnis:::"r~garding whether . ., . ... ... . -. ' / plaintiff worked contemporaneously with; and iri>the vicinity of, O'Connor's employe~s. ' -_ Matter of New York City _Asbestos Lit~g., 2016 WL 2606742' at "*3 (Sup. Ct. N'.Y. Co. May 5': 2016) . Those decisions remain the law of the case with predlusive effect. People v. Evans, 94 N. Y. 2d 499, 503 (2000) ;· Excelsior 57th Corp. v. Excel Assoc., 150 A.D.3d 540, 540 (1st De~'t 2017); Sasson v. TLG Acquisition LLC, 150 A.D.3d 459, 460 (1st bep't 2017); Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v. Kaplan, 138 A.D.3d 415'1 :415 {ist Dep't'2016) . _· . . . . ~- ·... •/ ' . . " Neither, in· the __ National - Gri;d. defendants' pr:ior m_otion. for . .-. . ' ' ' ,;; summary judgment, 'nor -in this motion, have -_the<Na,tiortal Grid defendants pointed to any determinative- eviden~e that· was not part of the record_ of the mo'tions for summary ,judgment by Courter & Company, Thomas -O'Connor & coclpany, and Treadw'elt Corporation. As shown in opposition to the National-Grid defendants' motion for summary judgment.-, Michael Koulermos_ -t~~tified at his- deposition that _he worked at the Northport PC?We_r 'station during ' I ' • the 1950s while emp-loyed by Ge<?rge Campbell , • -~~ "" .. • -. ~ 4 . • sons, & • ' corroborated ~ by his Social~Sedurity Administrat~on_records<that reflect his . -. . . . '. : , ' ' ·'· .',. employment by that· employer· during· 1955-61-. ... koulrmos.189 5 6 of 8 This evider;ice [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 6] '.r"• NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 .. ' ....... INDEX NO. 190406/2014 •.·' RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 _ ·;· . . '<'.,· > conflicted with the National Grid defendants' evidence that construction of the facility spa.lined from 1960 to 1966 and that Courter & Company and Treadwell. ,~orpor~tiort 'were· not at the site •. ',r The evidence aiso i:;u~gested that Michael Koulermos's ·until 1965. work both p:edated Thomas O' co.nnor & Company's work at the site and was removed from when~ Thomas 0' Conn~r & Company worked. . If Michael Koul.ermos ~ s work was not proximate in both time and place to co-defendants' work, in fact.if his work predated their presence at the. work site by eve;ri a day, then his ·injury would .. .. not have arisen from or been. coiinected with.their work. >' III. CONCLUSION .~-' . Even if those co-defendants''.were not ..re_sp~:msible-_ for Michael Koulermos's injury,· they well ~ay be obligated to indemnify the National Grid, d~fendants. f~r: a~. their defense costs. long as· :they were incurred for a claim that·· a'rose from. or was connected with co-defendants' execution of their work at. the No.rthport power station. 523 Robinson v. Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC, 148 _A.D . 3d 522, 142 A.D.3d a-1410; Espina:l I 412 not ~ew Y~rk (lst.Dep'J2011); Matter of (-ls.t Dep' t draw~t 2013) . City of New York, 107 A.D.3d 411, . . . . . Upon thi's· record,. however conclusion. \~ v.: City Asbestos Litig., I . the court may For a.i1 the reasons explained above and by Justi~oulton, that issue.remains f9r trial. Therefore the court denies the motion by defendants National .Grid USA and National Grid:USA Service Cornpa:riy" Inc., toreargue their prior . . ' v· . ·~ ,,. ." ,• • .' . . . ' motion for summary "judgment on·· their ·e:ross-.ci~im~ against co' .... ~ . ' . defendants Courter & Company,·· Inc.'/ Thorri.as; O' Co~mor & Company, koulrmos.189 ..... 7 of 8 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2017 11:35 AM 7] INDEX NO. 190406/2014 'l .. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 ..· RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2017 ' - ' - ' - • • .- ~. <" Inc., and Treadwell Corporation for attorneys' .fees incurred in - - 222l(d).;. Windham v. New . . _York City T~. Auth., 115. A.D.3d 59_7,, 600 {ist ._Dep' t 2014); . . . . . defending plai?tiffs' claims. ·C:P,L.R. ' ~ - § ~·.' . . : ' ~ '· ' ' Hernandez v. St. Stephen o-f H1:1ngary School, 72 A.D.3d 595, 595 -~ (1st Dep't ..· -.~ 2010)~ -· ·-·,' DATED: ,.,,< November 9; 20i7 •• : . . - J--~ V);-.Jl~s •'LUCY BILLINGS I_- .J·.S. c. ; LUCY BtLUNGS J.S.C. ··, .·. I -.. ~- <. .. '· koulrmos.189 ·' . ·; 7. '-1--. 8 of 8 : • ••• -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.