A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws
December 30, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief survey of many of the environmental and regulatory laws passed by the Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor in the 86th Regular Session of the Legislature, which ended in May 2019. Altogether, more than 1,300 laws were enacted in this session, including a surprising number of environmentally related bills. Most of these new laws take effect on September 1, 2019. This survey places them in the following broad categories: Air, Water; Waste; Disaster (principally because of the effects of Hurricane Harvey); and Miscellaneous.
(Special thanks to Jay Bowlby, a summer intern in our Houston office, who made a significant contribution to this survey.)
1.
Air
HB 1627—amends Section 386.001(2) of the Health and Safety Code to remove several counties from the list of counties with deteriorating air quality subject to the Texas Emissions Reductions Plan.
HB 1346—relates to the diesel emissions reductions incentives and gives the TCEQ flexibility in administering this program.
HB 2726—concerns amended air quality permit applications. The law provides that construction of a project may proceed, at the applicant’s own risk, after the TCEQ Executive Director has issued a draft permit including the permit amendment. However, this provision does not apply to a permit amendment affecting a concrete batch plant located within 888 yards of a residence.
HB 3725—creates the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Trust Fund, which will be held by the Comptroller and administered by the TCEQ, which also administers the TERP program.
SB 698—authorizes the TCEQ to provide expedited processing of certain Texas Clean Air Act permit applications by increasing the agency’s permitting staff.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe lawyers of Little Bulman Medeiros & Whitney PC will be joining Pierce Atwood on December 9, 2013. The combined firm will have a larger construction litigation practice. Little Bulman is already recognized for its handling of construction disputes. Pierce Atwood is one of the largest firms in New England. Their combined forces intended to create a strong presence in construction litigation throughout New England.
Gloria Pinza, a managing partner at Pierce Atwood said of Little Bulman that “their exceptional credentials in the construction law area will combine with our strong construction practice to create a regional practice that will provide highly competitive expertise, depth and value throughout New England and beyond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements
October 02, 2018 —
Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination.
Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Margolies may be contacted at
bmargolies@tlsslaw.com
20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!
August 10, 2021 —
Wilke Fleury LLPCongratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2020!
Each attorney has been awarded an accolade in the following practice areas:
Kathryne Baldwin – Insurance
Dan Baxter – Business Litigation & Government Contracts
Adriana Cervantes – Medical Malpractice
Heather Claus – Health Care
Aaron Claxton – Health Care
Dan Egan – Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor
Samson Elsbernd – Employment & Labor
Danny Foster – Litigation Insurance
David Frenznick – Construction & Construction Litigation
George Guthrie – Real Estate & Construction Litigation
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case
November 08, 2017 —
Ciaran Way & Robert F. Walsh – White and Williams LLPOn October 18, 2017, in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, the Connecticut Supreme Court certified four issues for appeal, which relate to trigger, allocation, pollution exclusions, and the occupational disease exclusion in the context of asbestos bodily injury claims. This post identifies the issues the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide on appeal and sets forth the Appellate Court’s ruling on each issue.
Issue 1: Whether a “continuous trigger” theory of coverage applies to asbestos-related disease claims and whether expert medical testimony on the timing of injury should be precluded
The Appellate Court applied a continuous trigger, and found that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ciaran Way, White and Williams LLP and
Robert Walsh, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims
June 30, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Paslay v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. B265348, filed 6/27/16), a California appeals court found triable issues of fact regarding whether State Farm breached its contract in paying a water loss, but affirmed summary adjudication for the insurer on bad faith and elder abuse claims based on the genuine dispute doctrine.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…
August 10, 2021 —
Sean Donoghue - Construction ExecutiveAs certain as death and taxes, documents will need to be exchanged in the event of a lawsuit. Here is what to expect and a few tips for reducing costs and protecting the case.
What Needs to Be Produced?
Discovery is broad, but proportional to the needs (i.e., usually the dollar value) of the case. Cost reports, bid back up and scheduling information are often at the heart of damages issues in construction disputes. Thus, while it will depend on the nature of the dispute, these items will generally need to be produced.
It is no secret that electronically stored information (ESI) can be a big part of discovery in litigation, particularly in a document intensive industry like construction. In addition to electronically stored project files, expect that the inboxes of employees who are close to the dispute will need to be searched. How many will depend on the size of the dispute and the number of players involved. Hard-drives and text messages of those employees may also be discoverable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Donoghue, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Donoghue may be contacted at
sdonoghue@eckertseamans.com
