The underlying contractual dispute arose out of a construction-related incident on a project in Queens. The Owner and General Contractor sought contractual and common law indemnity from our client based upon a non-descript reference to a future indemnity agreement within the governing proposal. Dan successfully argued that, under New York law, there must be clear and unmistakable intent of both parties in order to enforce an indemnity obligation. The one-line reference to a future agreement was too vague and ambiguous to constitute an enforceable agreement. As such, the Owner and General Contractor could not maintain their contractual indemnity claim. The Court also dismissed the common law indemnity claim based upon evidence that our client did not direct, control or supervise the Plaintiff’s underlying work.
