Morales v. Walter
The court addresses whether sections 2-9 of the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635) should be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of their enactment. The plaintiff, Raymond Morales, sustained injuries while employed by The Ullman Company, Inc. and sued Vanderbilt Associates, from whom Ullman leased premises. Vanderbilt then commenced a third-party action against Ullman for contribution and/or indemnification. Ullman moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the antisubrogation rule, as it had obtained liability insurance for both itself and Vanderbilt. The Act amended Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 to generally eliminate an employer’s liability for contribution to third parties, except in cases of 'grave injury.' The court concluded that the relevant sections of the Act should not be applied retroactively, citing the presumption of prospective application and the absence of clear legislative intent for retroactivity. Additionally, Ullman failed to demonstrate that the personal injury claim was a risk covered by an 'insured contract' exception in the policy. Therefore, the Supreme Court's denial of Ullman's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was affirmed.