Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Facilities Development Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 559 (1988)
A party seeking contribution from another tortfeasor must demonstrate that both parties contributed to the same injury to the plaintiff.
Summary
This case addresses the requirements for a valid claim for contribution under New York law. Nassau Roofing sued Facilities Development Corp. (Facilities) over a defective roof. Facilities counterclaimed against Nassau and cross-claimed against Celotex, the insulation supplier. Celotex then brought a third-party claim against Construction Consultants, Inc. (Consultants), alleging they negligently advised Facilities to replace the roof. The court held that Celotex could not seek contribution from Consultants because Celotex’s liability stemmed from the allegedly defective roof, while Consultants’ potential liability stemmed from negligent advice to replace the roof – two distinct injuries. The court emphasized that contribution requires that the parties contribute to the same injury.
Facts
Nassau Roofing installed a roof on Lincoln Hospital under contract with Facilities. Nassau purchased insulation from Celotex. After installation, the roof allegedly failed due to the insulation’s expansion coefficient. Facilities hired Consultants, who advised replacing the roof. Nassau refused, and Facilities hired another contractor for $1,500,000.
Procedural History
Nassau sued Facilities, subcontractors, and Celotex, seeking a declaration of non-responsibility or contribution from Celotex. Facilities counterclaimed against Nassau and cross-claimed against Celotex. Celotex then initiated a third-party action against Consultants, seeking contribution. The trial court dismissed Celotex’s claim. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding Consultants’ duty related solely to post-construction advice and could not have caused the initial damages. Celotex appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Celotex, an insulation supplier potentially liable for a defective roof, can maintain a claim for contribution against a construction consultant who allegedly negligently advised the owner to replace the roof, when the owner then sued the insulation supplier?
Holding
No, because Celotex and Consultants did not contribute to the same injury. Celotex’s potential liability arises from the defective roof, while Consultants’ potential liability arises from negligent advice, which are distinct injuries.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that a key requirement for contribution under Dole v. Dow Chem. Co. and CPLR 1401 is that the culpable parties must be “subject to liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death.” While contribution can apply regardless of the legal theories or the nature of the tortfeasors’ actions, the breach of duty must contribute to the same injury. Here, Facilities’ injury for which Celotex is being sued is the defective roof. Consultants, who had no role in the roof’s installation, did not contribute to this injury. The court reasoned that “Needlessly replacing a sound roof is obviously not the same as having a defective roof; it is an entirely separate and distinct injury. For this reason, the claim for contribution must fail.” The court distinguished Schauer v. Joyce, where successive acts of malpractice by two attorneys led to the same injury. The court further explained that if Consultants were negligent in advising Facilities to replace a sound roof, Celotex would not be liable and could have no claim against Consultants. Conversely, if the roof needed replacement, Consultants did nothing wrong and did not augment Celotex’s potential damages. Ultimately, the court found that Celotex’s third-party claim against Consultants failed because the parties did not contribute to the same injury suffered by Facilities.