EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule
July 19, 2021 —
Karen Bennett - Lewis BrisboisThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will revise a 2020 final rule clarifying requirements for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (June 2, 2021). CWA Section 401 requires states and tribes to certify that any discharges associated with a federal permit will comply with applicable state or tribal water quality requirements.
In an effort to eliminate 401 certification being used as a tool for delaying or imposing conditions unrelated to protecting water quality on federal permits, the 2020 rule established limits on the scope and timeline for review and required any conditions on certification to be water-quality related. State and Tribal governments and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing it constrained state and tribal decision-making authority by limiting the term “other appropriate requirements of State law” in CWA Section 401(d) to “water quality requirements” and “point source discharges.”
With EPA’s decision to revise the rule, many believe these same scope and timing limitations will be targets for change. Clients with experience, positive or negative, under the 2020 rule should consider submitting comments by the August 2, 2021 deadline.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Bennett, Lewis BrisboisMs. Bennett may be contacted at
Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims
January 20, 2020 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon.
In State Farm, Taylor and Laurel Boone (the Boones), State Farm’s subrogors, purchased two hoverboards from third parties in transactions facilitated by Amazon. They purchased the first hoverboard on October 31, 2015 and the second on November 10, 2015. The Boones started using the hoverboards on or about December 25, 2015. On March 16, 2016, the hoverboards caught fire and the fire spread to destroy the Boones’ home. As alleged in the amended complaint, the hoverboards were “manufactured by unknown manufacturers from China.” State Farm, as the Boones’ subrogee, filed suit asserting negligence and negligent failure to warn claims against Amazon.
Amazon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that State Farm’s claims against it were governed by the MPLA and, as a service provider, it was not liable under the MPLA. In response, State Farm argued that Amazon was liable because it acted as a “marketplace” and that, rather than MPLA claims, Amazon is subject to common law negligence and failure to warn claims. The District Court agreed with State Farm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?
August 24, 2017 —
Laura Parsons-CDJ STAFFAn appellate court has ruled that the sponsor and not the condo board is responsible for repairing construction defects at 50 Madison Avenue, a multi-story apartment building in New York City across from Madison Square Park, Habitat reported. Plaintiff’s Simon and Ludmilla Lorne have brought upon three lawsuits in a legal battle lasting a decade.
The first came in 2007, two years after the Lorne’s purchased their $3 million seventh-floor apartment. At that time, the sponsor offered to repair the concrete slab under the hardwood floors that had not been properly leveled. However, the Lorne’s and the condo board disagreed about who and how the repairs would be accomplished. The second lawsuit wherein the court ruled that repairing the construction defects was the responsibility of the sponsor occurred in 2009. However, the Lorne’s sued the board yet again in 2015, citing failure to maintain and repair the building. Since the 2015 suit was based on the same allegations as the 2007 suit, it was dismissed by the judge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®
November 06, 2023 —
Lewis Brisbois(November 2, 2023) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for ‘Insurance Law,’ ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ ‘Litigation - Labor and Employment,’ and ‘Environmental Law,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 25 metro regions in its 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®.
In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national ranking, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories:
Akron
- Commercial Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Mergers & Acquisitions Law
- Tax Law
- Trusts & Estates Law
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida
May 29, 2023 —
Michael Gnesin - Lewis BrisboisFt. Lauderdale, Fla. (May 19, 2023) - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese citizens who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents from purchasing any residential or commercial land or farmland in Florida.
Senate Bill 264, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” will prohibit Chinese nationals from buying land unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. The bill also imposes certain restrictions on Chinese citizens – and others, including Russians and Venezuelans – with non-tourist visas when it comes to buying land near a military base in Florida. For example, and in an exception to the new law, Chinese citizens with non-tourist visas would be limited to buying fewer than two acres of land that is at least five miles away from any military institutions.
Senate Bill 264 reads in pertinent part:
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent agricultural land or any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in such land in this state….
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, or have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in real property on or within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility in this state…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Gnesin, Lewis BrisboisMr. Gnesin may be contacted at
Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com
Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed.
Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts.
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
Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling
February 01, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems.
As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime
February 24, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelEarlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit.
Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company
The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
