Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners
June 25, 2019 —
John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIt is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities.
A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and
Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property
October 26, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers.
The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”).
After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
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
More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens
January 28, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs we settled yet another construction case on the courthouse steps today, I began to think about what I should post to begin 2009. Of course, given the construction industry slowdown that is predicted, and the trend at construction projects around the Commonwealth of Virginia that looks to me as if payments will be harder to come by from Owners less willing, for financial reasons, to work with contractors, mechanic’s liens will be more useful, and necessary, now than ever.
Virginia mechanic’s liens are unusually strong because your memorandum of lien takes priority over all prior liens on the property that you have improved (including from the bank that is financing the project) except in very limited circumstances. What this means is that, should you properly file and sue to enforce your lien, you get to foreclose and have first crack at any money. By contrast, a judgment lien takes priority only over liens filed after the lien is recorded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
The Ghosts of Projects Past
December 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorSean Minahan, one of my partners, and I were discussing a construction dispute the other day and we commented again and again about the significant organization required to get a construction project to completion. From the contracts, to the schedule, to the funding—everything has to be in lock step or there will be problems that could bring the project to a halt, or worse yet litigation.
The same is true of construction claims. To present a claim effectively, it has to be simple. But, to make it simple will require substantial documentation and organization of all aspects of a claim.
This point was driven home this week when I received Long International’s Construction Claims Analysis Checklist Long International. The Checklist is 11 pages long and identifies various aspects of a claim, from the simple to the complicated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet
October 30, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & Amtoj S. Randhawa - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGerman manufacturer eQ-3 has found itself under siege by a botnet known as "Hide 'N Seek." This pernicious malware has infected tens of thousands of eQ-3's smart home devices by compromising the device's central control unit. Once a device has been infected, the malware spreads to other Internet of Things ("IoT") devices connected to the same wireless network. IoT devices have become the prime target for botnet attacks. As opposed to computers, laptops, or other larger computing devices, the smaller storage capacity and lower processing power of IoT devices limit the amount and complexity of the security measures that can be installed—making them an easier target for botnets.
What is a Botnet?
For those unfamiliar with the term, a botnet is a network of devices infected with a malware program allowing the infector to control and/or exploit the devices. Once a suitable number of devices are infected, the person or group controlling the botnet can harness the computing power of each infected device to perform activities which were previously constrained by a single device's capabilities (i.e. DDoS attacks, spamming, cryptocurrency mining, etc.).
Hide 'N Seek – History and Capabilities
The Hide 'N Seek botnet first appeared in January 2018 and has since spread rapidly. Its sophisticated design and capabilities have captivated the attention of many security watchdogs and researchers. While many botnets are designed to be "quick and dirty" (i.e. infect a few devices, eke out a little profit, and inevitably be cleared out or rendered ineffective by security updates and fixes), Hide 'N Seek was designed to maintain itself in the host's system indefinitely. When it was first released, Hide 'N Seek primarily targeted certain routers and internet-enabled security cameras; however, it has now began targeting digital video recorders, database servers, and most recently, smart home hubs.
Hide 'N Seek's communication capabilities are also more advanced than previous botnets. Previous botnets relied on existing communications protocols to communicate with other another, but Hide 'N Seek uses a custom-built peer-to-peer system to communicate. This advancement allows Hide 'N Seek to spread more rapidly than previous botnets.
Hide 'N Seek is also capable of extracting a device owner's personal information (i.e. name, address, e-mail, telephone numbers, etc.) whereas previous botnets were not. Most importantly, Hide 'N Seek is consistently updated to increase its infection rate, decrease its detection probability, and bypass any security measures designed to detect and remove it from the system. This modularity has proved to be Hide 'N Seek's greatest strength.
Protecting Against Hide 'N Seek and Other Botnets
While many of the precautions will undoubtedly come from the device manufactures vis-à-vis software programming and updates, homebuilders can still take some precautions to protect their customers.
- When selecting a smart home system to incorporate into a home's construction, be sure to evaluate its security features including, but not limited to its: wireless connectivity, password/passphrase requirements, interconnectedness with other IoT devices, etc. Third-party reviews from tech-oriented outlets will likely have useful information on a device's security measures, vulnerabilities, and any recent security compromises.
- Be vigilant in installing any eQ-3 smart home systems. The extent of the damage caused by Hide 'N Seek botnet remains unknown, as does damage from other potentially-infected technology. Thus, it may be prudent to avoid installing any eQ-3 device until it becomes evident that the threat has been neutralized and all security vulnerabilities have been remedied.
- If a builder uses technology other than eQ-3, precautions must be taken. Ensure that technology providers are thoroughly researched. It is also recommended to include strong contractual indemnity provisions, and require vendors to carry cyber-specific insurance policies.
- Homebuilders should consider purchasing their own stand alone cyber liability policies as a safety net, should potential exposure arise.
Scott Satkin and Amtoj Randhawa are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Amtoj at amtoj.randhawa@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?
August 10, 2020 —
Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance.
Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Courtney Arbucci,
Peter A. Dubrawski and
Austin F. Smith
Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
