A New York appellate court recently ruled that the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (JASA) must indemnify the Town of North Hempstead for damages related to a personal injury case. This decision, made on July 15, 2026, affects how organizations handle liability and indemnification agreements, particularly in cases involving workplace injuries.

The case began when Gail Selis, an employee of JASA, tripped and fell on a torn section of carpeting while at work. She filed a lawsuit against the Town of North Hempstead, which owned and maintained the building where the accident occurred. The Town then sought indemnification from JASA, claiming that the organization should cover the costs associated with Selis's injuries.

The dispute escalated through multiple court proceedings, leading to a judgment that has significant implications for both the Town and JASA. The ruling clarifies the conditions under which indemnification agreements are enforceable, particularly in relation to negligence claims.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Gail Selis, the plaintiff who suffered injuries; the Town of North Hempstead, the defendant and third-party plaintiff; and the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged, the third-party defendant. The Town contracted JASA to provide social work services to its senior residents, which included operating within the Town's facilities.

The legal battle began when Selis filed her lawsuit against the Town after her fall. The Town then initiated a third-party action against JASA, seeking contractual indemnification. This led to a series of motions and court decisions, including a denial of JASA's request for summary judgment to dismiss the Town's indemnification claim.

The case made its way through the New York court system, culminating in a trial where the jury found the Town 100% at fault for Selis's accident. Following the trial, JASA attempted to renew its motion for summary judgment, but the court denied this request, leading to the final ruling on March 18, 2024.

The Ruling

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that JASA is obligated to indemnify the Town for all costs and damages awarded to Selis. The judges involved in the ruling were Betsy Barros, Cheryl E. Chambers, Lillian Wan, and Susan Quirk.

The court stated, "The right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract." This highlights the importance of clearly defined terms in indemnification agreements. The ruling emphasized that the intention to indemnify can be clearly implied from the language and purposes of the entire agreement between JASA and the Town.

Furthermore, the court noted that the phrase 'arising out of' means originating from or having a connection with the situation at hand, requiring only a causal relationship between the injury and the risk covered by the indemnification. In this case, Selis's injury occurred while she was working for JASA in a location where JASA was contracted to provide services, thus satisfying the court's interpretation of the indemnification clause.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future contractual relationships between municipalities and service providers. It underscores the necessity for organizations to carefully draft indemnification clauses in their contracts. The decision clarifies that even if a party is found entirely at fault, they may still seek indemnification from another party if the contract explicitly allows for it.

The ruling may also influence how organizations approach liability and risk management, especially in industries where employees work in facilities owned by other entities. It serves as a reminder that businesses must ensure they understand their contractual obligations and the potential liabilities they may face.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether JASA plans to appeal the ruling. There are no related cases pending at this time.