Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior
February 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.”
Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.”
KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice
December 29, 2020 —
Robert Dennison - Traub LiebermanIn American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage.
The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies.
The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Dennison, Traub LiebermanMr. Dennison may be contacted at
rdennison@tlsslaw.com
Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case
February 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please
January 08, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe lawyers do a fair amount of reading. Documents. Court decisions. Passive aggressive correspondence from opposing counsel. As well as statutes, regulations and administrative guidance. And you might be surprised how often words can be ascribed very different meanings depending on who is reading it. Such, I suppose, is the nature of language. When it comes to public agency interpretations of its own regulations, however, you would be well to heed that authors are often the best interpreters of their own works, or at least that’s how the courts tend to view it, as in the next case L & S Framing Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C096386 (July 24, 2023).
The L & S Framing Case
Martin Mariano, an employee of L & S Framing, Inc., suffered a brain injury when he fell from the “second floor” while working on a single family house. What, exactly, this “second floor” was, was a point of a contention in the legal case that followed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools (No. G049060, filed 6/26/15, ord. pub. 7/2/15), a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.
Valley Crest contracted to build a pool at the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point. Valley Crest subcontracted with Mission Pools to perform the work. The master contract contained an indemnity clause in favor of St. Regis, and the subcontract contained an indemnity clause in favor of Valley Crest. An intoxicated guest who was rendered quadriplegic after diving in the shallow end of the pool sued the hotel, Valley Crest, Mission and others involved in the design, construction and operation of the pool. The suit included allegations that the pool depth was improperly marked; there was inadequate warning signage; and the pool finish caused the pool to appear deeper than it was. Valley Crest tendered its defense to Mission Pools under the subcontract’s indemnity agreement. When Mission did not respond, Valley crest filed a cross-complaint for indemnity. All parties ultimately reached a settlement with the injured plaintiff, leaving Valley Crest’s cross-complaint against Mission Pools.
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
Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law
July 24, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Second Circuit turned to English law to determine the obligations of the reinsurer. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Equitas Ins. Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12461 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2023).
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP) provided an umbrella policy to a predecessor of Dole Food Company for a policy period from October 1968 to October er 1971. Equitas then reinsured part of ICSOP's exposure for the same three-year period. English law governed the reinsurance policy.
In 2009, homeowners in Carson, California sued Dole for polluting their soil and groundwater. Dole and ICSOP settled these claims and allocated $20 million of the settlement liability to the ICSOP-Dole policy, even thought the homeowners' property damage and personal injuries continued to accrue after the ICSOP-Dole policy period ended. In doing so, the settlement followed The California law for allocation, known as the "all sums rule." This rule treated any insurer whose policy was in effect during any portion of the time during which the continuing harm occurred as jointly and severally liability for all property damages or personal injuries caused by a pollutant.
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
Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes
July 08, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO.
Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2]
A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes
May 13, 2024 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawIn a groundbreaking move aimed at fostering fair competition and empowering workers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule last week to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. This ruling may carry profound implications for the construction industry, prompting construction businesses to reassess their practices and ensure compliance while maintaining competitiveness. Let’s explore how construction companies, large and small, can navigate this regulatory shift effectively.
Noncompete clauses have long been a staple in employment contracts within the construction sector, often used to protect proprietary information and retain skilled talent. However, the FTC’s ban on noncompetes demands a reevaluation of these practices. Employers must recognize the potential consequences of noncompliance, including legal repercussions and reputational damage, and take proactive steps to adapt to the new regulatory landscape.
Communications with Employees
The FTC rule requires employers to provide a form notice of non-enforcement to all present and former employees subject to an unexpired noncompete provisions. However, given the immediate legal challenges to the FTC’s rule and the fact that the 120-day compliance window has not yet begun, there is no reason to take immediate action or begin notifying employees. Instead, business owners should wait for at least 60 days before taking concrete action in response to the rule to see if any court temporarily enjoins the effectiveness of the rule.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLPMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@burr.com
