Horowitz v. A.B.C. Trucking Co., 59 N.Y.2d 618 (1983)

The exclusive remedy provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) bars third-party claims for contribution against an employer who has already been held liable for compensation under the Act, and co-employee immunity protects employees from suit.

Summary

This case addresses whether a third-party defendant can seek contribution from the plaintiff’s employer and a co-employee, where the employer has already been ordered to pay compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The New York Court of Appeals held that the LHWCA’s exclusive remedy provision bars such third-party claims for contribution against the employer. The Court also found that a co-employee is immune from suit, precluding any vicarious liability claims against the owner of the vehicle driven by the co-employee. The defendant’s remedy to challenge the award lies in the federal system, not in state court.

Facts

Plaintiff, an employee of Atlantic Repair Co., Inc., received a compensation award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Defendant Horowitz, facing a lawsuit from the plaintiff, brought a third-party action seeking contribution from Atlantic Repair, as well as from Bacolo, a co-employee, and Decker Tank & Equipment Company, the owner of the truck driven by Bacolo. Horowitz claimed that the federal compensation award should not bar his third-party claim, because he did not receive notice of the federal proceedings.

Procedural History

The trial court granted Atlantic Repair’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, effectively dismissing the third-party complaint.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the exclusive remedy provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act bars a third-party action for contribution against the injured party’s employer, when the employer is already subject to a compensation order under the Act.
2. Whether a co-employee is immune from suit for contribution based upon injuries caused to the plaintiff.
3. Whether the owner of a vehicle can be held vicariously liable when the driver of the vehicle (a co-employee) is immune from suit.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides an exclusive remedy, barring actions against the employer outside the scope of the Act.
2. Yes, because co-employees are immune from such suits under the LHWCA.
3. No, because if the driver is immune from suit, there can be no liability imputed to the vehicle owner.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the LHWCA explicitly states that an employer’s obligation to compensate an employee under the act is “exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee… and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law… on account of such injury” (33 U.S.C. § 905(a)). The court cited several US Supreme Court cases supporting this principle, including Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Kopke, Inc., 417 U.S. 106, Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R.R. Co., 406 U.S. 340, and Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U.S. 282. While the defendant argued that the federal award should not bind him because he had no notice, the Court stated that the defendant’s recourse was to challenge the federal compensation order in a federal forum, not in state court. The court also stated that “The exclusive means for setting aside Federal compensation orders is by way of an administrative or judicial proceeding in a Federal forum pursuant to the provisions of the act”. Regarding the co-employee, the Court cited Dingler v. Halcyon Lijn N.V., 305 F. Supp 1, 2, and 33 U.S.C. § 933(a), for the principle that a co-employee is immune from suit. Consequently, because the driver, Bacolo, was immune from suit, no vicarious liability could be imputed to Decker Tank, the vehicle’s owner, citing Naso v. Lafata, 4 N.Y.2d 585; Rauch v. Jones, 4 N.Y.2d 592; Albarran v. City of New York, 56 A.D.2d 822.