Jump to Navigation

Plaintiff-Respondent, v Universal Services Group, Ltd. Defendant-Appellant. Universal Services Group, Ltd., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Pace Plumbing Corp., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. Universal Services Group

Published on: Tue, 2013-03-12 10:52

The contractor claimed that waterproofing applied by the subcontractor at the construction project failed. The appellate court found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to the subcontractor's claims for contribution because the claims were based on alleged breaches of an express contract. A purely economic loss resulting from a breach of contract did not constitute an "injury to property" within the meaning of CPLR 1401. There was no evidence of danger to the public from the water leaks. The trial court also correctly barred the third-party claims of negligence as against the architect and the negligence, product liability and breach of warranty claims as against the supplier. There was no contractual relationship between the subcontractor and these parties or indeed any other relationship that imposed a duty running to the subcontractor. The trial court properly denied the subcontractor's motion for partial summary judgment which sought dismissal of claimed damages due to upgrades as opposed to repair work. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether any of the costs included in the damages constituted upgrades as opposed



Main menu 2

Lambadi Software Developer P.L.C