Partners Nicole Salerno and Kyriaki Chrisomallides secured summary judgment on a property damage claim against their demolition client, including dismissal of all cross-claims for common law contribution and indemnification, breach of contract, and contractual indemnification.

This subrogation action arose out of property damage at a building in Manhattan. Plaintiff, the insurer for its subrogors, who were tenants in the building, sought to recover for multiple water-related incidents that occurred between December 30, 2017 and January 7, 2018, as well as a separate water-related event on July 2, 2018. The demolition work took place during December and January, when certain parties were aware that temperatures in the building were low. The parties in the case argued that our demolition client caused the pipe freezes by removing heating equipment on the first and second floors and by creating holes and gaps in the façade and exterior walls through which outside air could enter those floors. The other moving parties further argued that the January 3, 2018 water event occurred when a pipe burst approximately 30 feet from the area of a revolving door that our demolition client had removed, allowing cold air to enter.

The Court was unpersuaded by those arguments, finding that our demolition client’s scope of work had nothing to do with heat and that it did not create the condition that caused the pipes to freeze between December 30, 2017 and January 7, 2018. The Court further found no basis to hold our demolition client even partially liable for failing to perform another contractor’s responsibility, namely insulating holes at the jobsite, particularly where there was no suggestion that our client had any responsibility for heat at the property. The Court also found that we conclusively demonstrated there was no evidence that our client either failed to complete a specific task or performed its work improperly in a manner that caused the pipes to burst. Finally, the Court found that our demolition client had no role in the July 2018 water incident because it was not contracted to perform any work related to that event.

With respect to the claims for contractual indemnification, the Court found that our demolition client raised a material issue of fact as to whether it was responsible for heating or weatherproofing at the site and noted that it had not received any complaints about its work. The Court concluded that those entities failed to raise triable issues of fact showing either that our client was responsible for the failure to heat the building or that our client’s work was deficient and caused the leaks. Accordingly, the Court ruled that our demolition client did not owe contractual indemnification in this case.