Lugo v. Purple & White Markets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lugo v. Purple & White Markets, Inc.

104 A.D.3d 435, 960 N.Y.S.2d 410

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 435 (Lugo v. Purple & White Markets, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lugo v. Purple & White Markets, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 435, 960 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered April 11, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the branch of third-party defendant FICA’s motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of third-party plaintiffs’ claims for contractual indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the plain meaning of the indemnification provision at issue here (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]), FICA is obligated to indemnify third-party plaintiff Rose Trucking for claims or damages involving FICA’s drivers only if two requirements are met: (1) the claim or damage arose from the driver’s use of “the Equipment,” and (2) the claim or damage occurred as the result of the driver’s acts or omissions “outside the scope” of the performance of the agreement between FICA and Rose Trucking (the agreement). The agreement defined “Equipment” as “tractors,” which were leased by FICA to Rose Trucking.

Here, plaintiff driver fell from a trailer owned by Rose Trucking, while unloading it as part of the agreement. Under such circumstances and the plain meaning of the indemnification provision, neither requirement for indemnification was met. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered April 11, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the branch of third-party defendant FICA’s motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of third-party plaintiffs’ claims for contractual indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the plain meaning of the indemnification provision at issue here (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]), FICA is obligated to indemnify third-party plaintiff Rose Trucking for claims or damages involving FICA’s drivers only if two requirements are met: (1) the claim or damage arose from the driver’s use of “the Equipment,” and (2) the claim or damage occurred as the result of the driver’s acts or omissions “outside the scope” of the performance of the agreement between FICA and Rose Trucking (the agreement). The agreement defined “Equipment” as “tractors,” which were leased by FICA to Rose Trucking.

Here, plaintiff driver fell from a trailer owned by Rose Trucking, while unloading it as part of the agreement. Under such circumstances and the plain meaning of the indemnification provision, neither requirement for indemnification was met. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 435, 960 N.Y.S.2d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lugo-v-purple-white-markets-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack