In Collura v Premier Infrastructure & Energy LLC, et. al., Index No. 601562/2024, the plaintiff claimed that he was injured when the probe he was using to detect a water main leak struck an improperly marked buried electrical line. The markout of the underground utilities was performed by One Call Concepts Locating Services, Inc. (One Call). Neither PSEG nor LIPA were aware of the request for a markout or the fact that One Call mismarked the roadway.
On behalf of our clients, PSEG and LIPA, we moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against our clients and for summary judgment on our clients’ claims against One Call for contractual and common-law indemnification. Judge Gary M. Carlton of Supreme Court, Nassau County granted our motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against PSEG and LIPA and held that One Call owes our clients contractual and common-law indemnification.
In addition to finding that the injury-producing work was not performed, directed or supervised by our clients, the Court also found that our clients were not proper Labor Law defendants and that the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity governed by Labor Law § 241(6).
Judge Carlton noted that “ownership of the instrumentality involved in the accident does not, standing alone, establish owner status under the labor Law when the defendant did not contract for or otherwise have a nexus to the plaintiff’s work.” He further found that the plaintiff was performing preliminary or investigator work that was separate and distinct from construction, excavation or demolition and therefore falls outside the scope of work governed by Labor Law § 241(6).