Narrative Opinion Summary
In a legal dispute involving Healy Tibbitts Construction Company and MVN Associates, Inc., Healy contracted with the City of New York for a sewer project and engaged MVN for diving services. Following an injury claim by James Hartley, an MVN employee, against Healy for negligence, Healy sought indemnity from MVN based on their contract. MVN moved for summary judgment, claiming exemption under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act by asserting its status as a 'vessel,' which would preclude indemnity claims. The court examined whether the barges used by MVN met the statutory definition of 'vessel' under 33 USC 905(b) and whether Healy could be seen as an 'owner' of such a vessel. Finding unresolved factual issues regarding these points, the court denied the motion for summary judgment, allowing Healy's third-party claim to proceed. The court did not address the merits of Hartley's negligence claims in this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of 'Vessel' under 33 USC 905(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether the barges used by MVN fit the broad statutory definition of 'vessel' for the purposes of the Act.
Reasoning: The statute defines 'vessel' broadly, covering various roles related to its operation, and prohibits vessels from seeking indemnity or contribution from employers.
Denial of Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found fact questions regarding vessel status and denied MVN's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.
Reasoning: The court found that questions of fact remained regarding whether the barges used were indeed 'vessels' and whether Healy qualified as an 'owner' or similar entity under the Act.
Indemnity Claims under Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: MVN argued for summary judgment on the basis that it is a 'vessel' under the Act, thus exempt from indemnity claims by Healy.
Reasoning: MVN sought summary judgment to dismiss Healy's third-party complaint, arguing that it is a 'vessel' under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), thus exempting it from indemnity claims from an employer.