Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review
January 10, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs we round out the year, here’s a bit of news, with more likely to come, regarding the U.S. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards (ETS).
As we
wrote earlier, on November 4, 2021, OSHA issued its ETS which applies to private employers with 100 or more employees (Covered Employers). Among other things, the ETS requires Covered Employers to have a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated with certain exceptions, to provide for weekly testing of non-fully vaccinated employees, and to require face coverings. Under the ETS, Covered Employers were required to comply with the ETS other than the testing requirements by December 6, 2021 and to comply with the testing requirements beginning January 4, 2022.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe final touches are being put on two developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania. Southview, the larger of the two, comprises 35 single-family homes. Brookside comprises 16 single-family homes. During the next 18 months, the developers of the two communities will be responsible for the community improvements. If, after 18 months, these pass inspection, the township’s engineering firm will recommend that Sanatoga take responsibility for upkeep.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval
August 13, 2019 —
Elena Mazneva - BloombergLondon’s Heathrow Airport intends to speed up spending on its controversial third runway, even before getting approval for the 14 billion-pound ($18 billion) project, according to the industry regulator.
Europe’s busiest airport plans to boost early spending to 2.9 billion pounds, in 2014 prices, so it can stay on schedule for a planned 2026 opening, the Civil Aviation Authority said in a consultation document on its website. The costs will be incurred before the airport wins permission to build the runway, which the operator expects to happen in late 2021, according to the document. The Financial Times reported the plan earlier.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Elena Mazneva, Bloomberg
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers
July 21, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionLAS VEGAS, Nev. – JUNE 11, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that partner
Aaron Lovaas has been selected to the 2018 Mountain States Super Lawyers list, and associate
Casey Quinn has been selected to the 2018 Mountain States Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are named to a Super Lawyers list and less than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list. This is the 9th consecutive year Lovaas has been honored, while Quinn has been consistently selected as a Rising Star honoree in prior years.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Lovaas has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He also brings to the table experience as a business owner, having owned and managed his own boutique law firm for 12 years.
Casey Quinn, an associate in the Las Vegas office, focuses his practice in complex commercial and construction litigation. He represents a variety of business entities in commercial disputes, including contract claims, business torts, privacy lawsuits, defamation, and fraud. Quinn is a past chair of the Construction Law section of the State Bar of Nevada and has successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Nevada, as well as settled disputes through various forms of conflict resolution including mediation and arbitration.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
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
Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond
February 16, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design
April 15, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Melinda M. Carrido – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law.
Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain.
Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions
January 28, 2014 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985.
In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP
and
Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
