Being Named As the GC On A Permit Does Not Confer GC Obligations Even In the PI and PD Contexts

Farber Brocks & Zane recently achieved a reversal of the lower court’s denial of summary judgment when the majority of the Second Department extended the rule in Labor Law cases that the mere listing of an entity as the contractor on a work permit, without more, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether that entity is the general contractor on a particular project, to subrogation and personal injury actions. The Second Department refused to create a different definition of a general contractor in the subrogation/property damage context, than in the Labor Law context. The Decision is also notable for the holding that no duty to safeguard a project site is conferred simply by being named as the contractor on a work permit. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, etc. v Style Management Associates Corp., et al., 2015 NY Slip Op 01266 (2d Dept. 2015).