Episode 3: Dibrino, Contractual Indemnity, and New York’s Narrowing Labor Law Defenses
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
Episode 3: Dibrino, Contractual Indemnity, and New York’s Narrowing Labor Law Defenses
-
ナレーター：
-
著者：
When does a subcontractor’s equipment trigger contractual indemnification, and when is a jobsite hazard truly “integral to the work”?
This episode examines the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., which holds that ownership of equipment alone does not establish the connection required for contractual indemnity. Matthew Lerner explains why claims adjusters, coverage professionals, and litigators must examine the subcontractor’s actual scope of work rather than rely on a simple ownership or traceability theory.
The episode also explores New York’s increasingly narrow integral-to-the-work defense under Labor Law, including the critical question: could the hazard have been removed, repaired, or avoided without making the work impossible?
A concise guide to evaluating construction accident tenders, contractual risk transfer, reserves, Labor Law defenses, and early litigation strategy.