New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases
July 03, 2022 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Matthew Feinberg - Traub LiebermanSince the end of March, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued decisions in favor of the defense concerning New York Labor Law §240 and §241. These pro-defendant decisions take a narrow view of the scope of the Labor Law provisions. However, while it remains to be seen how the Court’s below will apply the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, these recent decisions are beneficial for the defense bar going forward.
In Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J March 22, 2022 N.Y. LEXIS 391 | 2022 NY Slip Op 01955 | 2022 WL 837579, the Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6). In Toussaint Plaintiff, who was an employee of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., brought the lawsuit against the Port Authority asserting claims under Labor Law § 200 (1) and Labor Law § 241 (6) after he was struck by a power buggy while operating a rebar-bending machine at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Power buggies are small, self-operated vehicles used to move materials on construction sites. On the day of the accident, a trained and properly designated operator drove the buggy into the area near the plaintiff's workstation. That vehicle operator got off the vehicle, but short time thereafter, another worker—who was not designated or trained to do so—drove the buggy a short while prior to losing control and striking plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) which states that “[no person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy.” In rejecting plaintiff’s argument the Court held that the "trained and competent operator" requirement is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Matthew Feinberg, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Feinberg may be contacted at mfeinberg@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023
January 16, 2024 —
C.J. Schexnayder - Engineering News-RecordAs construction's very busy and eventful year nears its close and the sector awaits many more ups and downs in 2024, ENR offers a look back at the Top 20 news stories that most caught readers' attention across a broad market spectrum—from the construction start of the long-awaited $16 billion New York-New Jersey rail tunnel rebuild and winners shortlisted for the first $7 billion in U.S. government funds for developing clean-energy hydrogen hubs to the still unfolding legal battle over Las Vegas Sphere project complexities and why a Texas jury awarded $860 million in a fatal Texas crane collapse verdict.
Reprinted courtesy of
C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?
October 10, 2022 —
Kerianne Kane Luckett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence.
Facts of the Case
ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Luckett may be contacted at
KKane@sdvlaw.com
Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty
March 26, 2014 —
David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement.
In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
David W. Evans,
Krsto Mijanovic, and
Gregory M. Smith
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Using the Prevention Doctrine
April 22, 2019 —
David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThe following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it.
One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Erhart may be contacted at
derhart@grsm.com
Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse
April 15, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWith the insurer conceding that there was evidence of potential collapse at portions of eight specific building locations, the court granted the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment in determining no additional buildings suffered from collapse. Exec. 1801 LLC v. Eagle W. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEZXIS 5923 (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2024).
Executive 1801 owned a group of six buildings with eighty-six residential units. The court previously granted partial summary judgment on Executive 1801's rain damage claim, leaving only claims regarding collapse. Eagle insured "the property for direct physical los or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of loss." The policy further provided, "We will pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property, caused by collapse of a building or any part of a building insured under this policy, if the collapse is caused by . . . hidden decay."
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
Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County
November 17, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – Nov 15th, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that managing partner Jeff Dennis was selected as one of the 500 most influential business people and opinion shapers in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal (OCBJ). Dennis will be recognized in OCBJ’s inaugural issue, OC500, publishing November 14, 2016.
Located in the Newport Beach office, Dennis currently serves as the Firm’s Managing Partner and specializes in a variety of litigation arenas, including construction, real estate and business litigation. He also handles insurance and higher education matters. Tom Newmeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Co-founding Partner, believes the award is representative of the leadership displayed by Dennis. “Jeff is an uncanny consensus builder, and you can see his steady hand in the firms’ growth and success. This recognition is a testament to his strong commitment to the community and his ability to facilitate innovative changes in Orange County.”
Dennis believes that community participation is a vital part of his law practice. He currently serves on the Executive Leadership Team for the American Heart Association’s Orange County Heart Walk. Under Dennis’ leadership, the firm proudly supports the OC Heart Walk, with over 150 participants joining Team N&D in 2016. As such, he volunteered to serve in the Orange County District Attorney’s selective Trial Advocacy Partnership (TAP) program. He is the past president of the Occidental College Board of Governors and helped lead Occidental’s Alumni Association as its former Orange County Regional Chair.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe town of Wheaton, Illinois is considering a change to its building codes, based on the recommendations made in the 2012 building code, released by the International Code Council. Eighty-two towns in Illinois already require new homes to have fire sprinklers. Wheaton did not adopt any changes from the 2006 or 2009 building code; they are currently using the standards of the 2003 edition.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
