AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test
February 18, 2020 —
Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLPConstruction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.
California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.
Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
- The subcontract is in writing;
- The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
- If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
- The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
- The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
- The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
- The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply.
You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the
Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & FearsMr. Dillion may be contacted at
bad@paynefears.com
Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails
September 05, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim based upon allegations of a general business practice of acting recklessly toward an insured's rights under the policy. Sandpiper Isle Condo. Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114279 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2022).
Sandpiper suffered property damage from Hurricane Irma. Empire accepted the claim but there was disagreement on the value of the damage. An appraisal issued an award in favor of Sandpiper but Empire failed to pay the benefits for two years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin
January 14, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction preparation of the Tennessee Volunteer’s $30.5 million new humanities building has begun, according to The Tennessean. The 80,000 square-foot facility will become the largest building on the university’s campus, and will feature 23 classrooms, 18 labs, 11 collaborative study areas, 56 offices, 20 adjunct faculty workrooms as well as an outdoor theater and courtyard.
“This is a significant milestone in the history of the college,” President Jerry Faulkner told The Tennessean. “This building has been on our wish list for about 12 years in terms of wanting to have this facility available, so for the first time our humanities division is going to have a home of its own.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations
August 24, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews KurthOn August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy.
At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
October 09, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court certified questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding coverage for underlying allegations of greenhouse gas emissions. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156211 (D. Haw. Sept. 5, 2023).
Aloha was sued in two lawsuits, one filed by the County of Maui and the second filed by the City and County of Honolulu. The underlying lawsuits alleged that Aloha disregarded known risks of harm to the counties when selling its fuel products that would inevitably combust and produce greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide, thereby changing the climate and causing harm to the counties.
Aloha tendered the suits to AIG. Coverage was denied based on AIG's determination there was no "occurrence" and the pollution exclusion barred coverage. Aloha sued AIG in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment on AIG's obligations under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels
October 15, 2014 —
Caroline Winter – Bloomberg BusinessweekPatagonia plans to use state and federal tax credits to invest $13 million in the construction of solar panels on 1,000 homes in Hawaii, turning the eco-conscious retailer into the financial backer of a green electrical utility.
With the announcement on Wednesday, Patagonia hopes companies across America will follow suit with similar efforts. “Any U.S. public or private company who pays their fair share of taxes can use this strategy to speed up the development of new energy infrastructure,” Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s chief executive, said in an interview. “And they can make money doing it and create jobs.”
Patagonia is joining forces with a tiny solar-financing company, Kina’ole Capital Partners, as well as a local Hawaiian bank to create a $27 million fund to pay for rooftop installation and upkeep. Starting in Hawaii makes sense because of its abundant sunshine and sky-high electrical rates; Hawaiians currently pay three times the U.S. average for electricity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline Winter, Bloomberg BusinessweekMs. Winter may be contacted at
cwinter10@bloomberg.net
PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8
August 03, 2020 —
Construction ExecutiveThere is just over one week left to apply for the extended period of the Paycheck Protection Program, which will accept new applications through Aug. 8. Congress extended the legislation by unanimous consent on June 30 and President Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, 2020, allowing approximately $131.9 billion in funding to remain accessible to small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Associated Builders and Contractors has expressed support for several changes to the PPP, but submitted comments on July 27, 2020, to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. Small Business Administration regarding changes to an interim final rule altering loan forgiveness and loan review procedures. ABC urges the government agencies to:
- Provide further guidance on when businesses should apply for loan forgiveness and when they are notified of their forgiveness status.
- Issue further guidance on the PPP audit process.
- Increase flexibility for employee retention requirements and loan forgiveness.
- Provide further clarification of non-payroll costs.
- Refocus efforts to deliver PPP funds to underserved communities and minority businesses.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Double-Breasted Dilemma
July 18, 2022 —
Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocsWhat Is A Double-Breasted Operation?
A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Rankins may be contacted at
lrankins@watttieder.com
