Continuing with a further look at s a legal malpractice decision in which the law firm settled the case, yet the matter continues on.  Here, in  QBE Ins. Corp. v Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske, P.C.  2015 NY Slip Op 32113(U)  May 13, 2015  Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 600412/2010  Judge: Carol R. Edmead we see the aftermath of a legal malpractice settlement amidst a squabble between insurers and their administrators and take a look at contribution after a claim for indemnification was denied.

Last week we saw that there was no situation in which QBE could claim indemnification from Maloof.  How about contribution?

“CPLR 1401, “Claim for contribution,” provides, in relevant part, that “two or more persons who are subject to liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, may claim contribution among them whether or not an action has been brought or a judgment has been rendered against the person from whom contribution is sought.” The Court of Appeals has held that the legislative history of this statue makes clear “[t]hat purely economic loss resulting from a breach of contract does not constitute ‘injury to property’ within the meaning of New York’s contribution statute” (Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY 2 d 21, 2 6 [ 19 8 7] ) . Courts have routinely upheld this principle (see e.g. Structure Tone, Inc. v Universal Servs. Group, Ltd., 87 AD3d 909, 911 [1st Dept 2011]; Children’s Corner Learning Ctr. v A. Miranda Contr. Corp., 64 AD3d 318, 324 [1st Dept 2009]). plain that “contribution is unavailable where . In short, it is . the underlying contractual claims seek purely economic damages” (Kleinberg v 516 W. 19th LLC, 121 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2014]). ”

General Obligations Law § 15-108 may intervene to end the discussion.

“As QBE and Maloof have settled, and QBE has stipulated to discontinue against Maloof in July 2014, Maloof argues that CSB’s contribution claim must be dismissed under General Obligations Law § 15-108 (b), which provides, in relevant part, that “release given in good faith by the injured person to one tortfeasor relieves him from liability to any other person for contribution.” CSB concedes that its contribution claim does not survive the settlement of QBE’s claims against Maloof. As such, the branch of Maloof’s motion seeking dismissal of QBE’s cross claim for contribution is also granted. “