55 N.Y.2d 627 (1981)
An indemnification clause in a construction subcontract, which clearly and unambiguously allocates the risk of liability for injuries arising out of the prosecution of the work under the subcontract, is enforceable.
Summary
This case concerns the enforceability of an indemnification clause in a construction subcontract. An employee of the subcontractor was injured while performing work under the subcontract, and the general contractor sought indemnification from the subcontractor based on the indemnity clause in their agreement. The New York Court of Appeals held that the indemnification clause was enforceable because it clearly allocated the risk of liability for injuries arising out of the prosecution of the work under the subcontract, and the injury fell within the scope of that clause.
Facts
Donald April, an employee of Wachtel, Dukauer and Fein, Inc. (Wachtel), a plumbing subcontractor, was injured while distributing plumbing materials at a construction worksite. Sovereign Construction Co., Ltd. (Sovereign) was the general contractor. The subcontract between Sovereign and Wachtel contained an indemnification clause stating Wachtel would be responsible for injuries to any person, including Wachtel’s employees, for damages “caused by or resulting from or arising out of any act or omission in connection with this Subcontract or the prosecution of work hereunder”. Wachtel was responsible for plumbing installations, providing plumbing materials, and unloading and distributing them at the worksite.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, Donald April, sued Sovereign Construction Co., Ltd. Sovereign, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Wachtel, Dukauer and Fein, Inc., seeking indemnification based on the subcontract agreement. The lower courts ruled in favor of Sovereign, enforcing the indemnification clause. Wachtel appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an indemnification clause in a construction subcontract is enforceable when an employee of the subcontractor is injured while performing work specifically required by the subcontract.
Holding
Yes, because the indemnity provision became controlling with respect to the responsibility and liability for the injury since the plaintiff, an employee of the subcontractor, was injured in the prosecution of the work under the subcontract.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding the indemnification clause enforceable. The court reasoned that the clause clearly and unambiguously allocated the risk of liability to Wachtel for injuries arising out of the work performed under the subcontract. Because the plaintiff was injured while distributing plumbing materials—an activity directly related to Wachtel’s responsibilities under the subcontract—the indemnification clause applied. The court emphasized that Wachtel was responsible not only for plumbing installations but also for providing and distributing plumbing materials, and the injury occurred during this process. The memorandum opinion does not provide extensive reasoning but emphasizes the direct connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the work required by the subcontract. By affirming the lower court’s decision, the Court upheld the principle of freedom of contract and the ability of parties to allocate risk through clear and unambiguous indemnification agreements.