AIG Prop. Cas. Co. v. High Line Constr. Group LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 02872 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department · May 7, 2026 · No. Index Nos. 158444/18, 595626/19, 595475/21; Appeal No. 6555; Case No. 2025-01839

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order concerning a sprinkler discharge allegedly caused by work performed by Sammy's Interior Painting, Inc., awarding High Line Construction Group LLC conditional summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Sammy's. The court otherwise affirmed summary judgment in favor of AIG Property Casualty Company and The Night LLC on contractual indemnification claims against High Line. It held that evidence could support a finding that Sammy's negligently triggered the sprinkler and that the indemnification provisions were enforceable because High Line was not negligent.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was properly denied because evidence in the record could allow a jury to conclude that Sammy's negligently caused the sprinkler's initial discharge by launching a force or instrument of harm.
  2. AIG and The Night were properly awarded summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claims against High Line because High Line's indemnification provision was broad and did not limit liability to situations in which High Line itself was negligent.
  3. High Line was entitled to conditional summary judgment against Sammy's on its contractual indemnification claim because the record contained no evidence that High Line workers were near the sprinkler or controlled the relevant work, and High Line therefore was not negligent.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Sammy's was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim and related cross-claims and third-party claims where evidence could support a finding that its work caused the sprinkler discharge.
  2. Whether AIG and The Night were entitled to summary judgment for contractual indemnification against High Line under broad indemnification provisions covering claims arising from the work or the acts of High Line or its subcontractors.
  3. Whether High Line was entitled to conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Sammy's where there was no evidence that High Line was negligent or controlled the work near the sprinkler.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002](followed)
  • Karydas v Ferrara-Ruurds, 142 AD3d 771, 772 [1st Dept 2016](followed)
  • Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 NY2d 172, 178 [1990](followed)
  • Regal Constr. Corp. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 15 NY3d 34, 38 [2010](followed)
  • Needham & Co., LLC v UpHealth Holdings, Inc., 212 AD3d 561, 561 [1st Dept 2023](distinguished)
  • Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp., 7 NY3d 412, 419 [2006](followed)
  • O'Sullivan v IDI Constr. Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006](followed)
  • Jamindar v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 90 AD3d 612, 616 [2d Dept 2011](followed)
  • Spielmann v 170 Broadway NYC LP, 187 AD3d 492, 494 [1st Dept 2020](followed)
  • Crouse v Hellman Constr. Co., Inc., 38 AD3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2007](followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…