Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

May 2, 2014

Exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law Trumps Vicarious Liability of Vehicle Owner

New York's Court of Appeals recently held that a defendant may not pursue a third-party contribution claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against a vehicle owner where the driver's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is insulated from liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6). See Isabella v. Koubek, __ N.Y.3d __, 2014 NY Slip Op 2100 (March 27, 2014).

Plaintiff Matthew Isabella, a passenger, was injured in a two-car automobile accident in a vehicle driven by Roberta Oldenborg, a co-worker, when returning from a business meeting. The other vehicle, owned by Peter Hallock, was driven by Doris Hallock. Isabella brought a claim against only the Hallocks. Oldenborg was insulated from liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6), which provides that the right to workers' compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy to an employee injured by the wrongdoing of another employee. Oldenborg was similarly insulated from a third-party claim by the Hallocks pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which precludes a third-party from seeking contribution or indemnification from the employer or from a co-employee unless the injured party has sustained a "grave injury" (not an issue in this case).

The Hallocks filed a third-party complaint against Michael Koubek, Oldenborg's husband and owner of the vehicle driven by Oldenborg. The Hallocks contended that Koubek was vicariously liable for Oldenborg's negligence pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which provides that every motor vehicle owner is vicariously liable for the negligent use of his vehicle. Koubek moved for summary judgment, asserting that Oldenborg's immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law likewise shielded him from liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The District Court denied Koubek's motion. The parties subsequently settled the case for $800,000 subject to a jury's apportionment of liability. The jury found the Hallocks were 10% liable and Koubek 90% liable based solely on his wife's negligence.

Koubek appealed and the Second Circuit certified this question to the Court of Appeals: whether a defendant may pursue a third-party contribution claim under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against the owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle driver's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is protected from suit by the exclusive remedy provisions of New York Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)?

The Court of Appeals found that the Hallocks third-party claim against Koubek was not permissible. The Court held that Koubek should not be held liable for third-party contribution where his various liability would stem solely from the negligence of the immunized driver. The Court rejected the Hallocks' argument that it would be unfair to saddle them with the entire $800,000 settlement, even though the jury found the Hallocks were only 10% liable. The result was simply a consequence of joint and several liability, which has been a long-standing feature of New York law, whereas Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 was primarily designed to ensure that injured persons be able to recover against the vehicle owner.

The Court's decision in Isabella confirms that parties will be broadly protected by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, including in personal injury actions involving motor vehicle accidents, except in the limited instances where a "grave injury" is sustained.

If you require further information regarding the content of this Legal Alert, please contact Thomas B. Cronmiller, Chair of the Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area at (585) 295-4424 or


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


Second Department Joins Other Departments: NYS Child Victims Act Applies to Out-of-State Residents Who Resided in NYS at Time of Abuse


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Gladys Vasquez, Monique Reid, Raymond Forrest, Pedro Martinez, Linda Slade, and Felipe Fernandez—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Compres, Sanchez, Fontanez, Pajaro, Garcia, and Jaquez—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Competello, Fernandez, Liz, Riley, and Trippett—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out