Phila. Developer Can’t Escape Liability for Nearly $40M Award Following Construction Worker’s Death, PA Appeals Court Rules

OCF had challenged the Philadelphia court’s decision denying its request for post-trial relief following a $68.5 million jury verdict in favor of the decedent’s estate, where the jury found the developer had acted as general contractor and was therefore liable for 50% of the unsafe conditions that led to the fall.

A construction company is on the hook for approximately $40 million after a Pennsylvania appellate court ruled there is sufficient evidence the company was responsible for, but failed to implement, adequate safety measures before a construction worker fell to his death from a fifth floor balcony.

On Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a $37.5 million damages award against OCF Construction for the company’s alleged negligence in the death of Siarhei Marhunou, a construction worker who fell nearly 50 feet while performing siding work. The appellate court concluded that the estate in Marhunova v. Fitler Construction Group sufficiently established that OCF was the general contractor of the project and owed Marhunou a duty to provide adequate safety measures under its agreement with the property owner.

OCF had challenged the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas’ decision denying its request for post-trial relief following a $68.5 million jury verdict in favor of Marhunou’s estate where the jury found the developer had acted as general contractor and was therefore liable for 50% of the unsafe conditions that led to the fall. OCF also challenged the trial court’s decision granting the plaintiff’s motion for $6.6 million in delay damages, bringing the total verdict amount to $75 million and the amount awarded against OCF to $37.5 million.

Among other things, the defendant argued it didn’t owe a duty to the decedent and that the estate failed to establish how the alleged breach of duty resulted in his death. OCF maintained that it had agreed to oversee the work by the subcontractors that it contracted with, but that it “never subcontracted with anyone, let alone decedent or his employer.” OCF also argued it was no longer the general contractor at the time of the fall, and that its agreement with the business that owned the property had been terminated.

The three-judge Superior Court panel, however, concluded that the estate offered sufficient evidence that OCF was the general contractor and that it breached its duty to Marhunou by failing to implement a fall arrest system. While OCF never subcontracted with Marhunou’s employer, the court determined that the agreement between OCF and the property owner provided that OCF would “supervise and direct the work,” and that the subcontractor’s work fell under “the totality of construction and services required by the contract documents.”

Jeffrey Goodman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky represented the plaintiff. In an emailed statement, he said they are pleased with the unanimous decision and that it “appropriately deferred to the unanimous findings of the jury.”

“This opinion acknowledges the great work performed by Judge [Angelo] Foglietta as the trial Judge and by the 12 citizens who faithfully executed their jury service. The amount of the jury’s verdict is appropriately large given that tragic loss of a husband and father,” Goodman said.

Maureen M. McBride of Lamb McErlane represented OCF Construction and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

President Judge Emerita Kate Ford Elliott authored the opinion. Judges Maria McLaughlin and Mary P. Murray joined.

In June 2024, the jury awarded $13.5 million to Marhunou’s estate’s Survival Act claim, $25 million for his wife’s Wrongful Death Act claim, and $30 million for his son’s Wrongful Death Act claim against numerous defendants. OCF was assigned 50% liability and moved for post-trial relief, challenging the verdict and the awards. Two months later, Foglietta granted the plaintiff’s request for delay damages and denied OCF’s motion seeking to toss the award, concluding plenty of evidence supported both the amount of the award and OCF’s liability as general contractor.

The appellate court agreed, concluding that a plain reading of the agreement provided that OCF would be responsible for supervising and directing work, including the “construction and services.”