OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected
July 19, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGovernor Brown Signs Legislation Increasing Cal/OSHA Fines
Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
Specific increases are listed below (all increases refer to maximum fines, Cal/OSHA has discretion as to the amount of the fine when issuing the citation):
- Section 6427 of the Labor Code was amended to increase fines, not of a serious nature, from $7,000 for each violation to $12,471 for each violation.
- Section 6429 of the Labor Code has increased fines for repeat violations; raising the maximum fine from $70,000 to $124,709 for each violation. Additionally, Section 6429 also raised the minimum fine for repeat violations from $5,000 to $8,908.
- Section 6431 raised fines for posting or recordkeeping violations from $7,000 to $12,471 per violation.
Full text of the penalty section of the labor code may be found
here
California OSHA Emergency Action Plan elements revised; California now more consistent with Federal Standards
Revisions to General Safety Orders section 3220(b) became effective on June 5, 2017 and contain two minor changes for California employers with regards to Emergency Action Plans (EAP).
The first change requires that an employer’s EAP be more detailed in describing the type of evacuation that is to be performed, not just the route for an evacuation. The previous element of the EAP simply required that the plan contain, “[e]mergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments.” The current element of the EAP requires that, “[p]rocedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments,” be identified.
The second change clarifies the language surrounding employees performing rescue or medical duties. Previously the only requirement in the EAP regarding rescue and medical duties was for employees that performed rescue and medical duties. The current version requires that the EAP contain, “[p]rocedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties. The use of the word and created potential gaps in plans as it is likely that employees may not be performing both rescue and medical duties, instead performing just rescue or medical duties. Plans must now include procedures to be followed by employees who perform either rescue or medical duties.
It is recommended that your EAP be in writing and updated to comply with the revised General Safety Orders section 3220. The full text of General Safety Orders section 3320 can be seen
here. Please contact us if you would like further details regarding your Emergency Action Plan.
Deadline for Electronic Submission of OSHA 300 Log Records for Injuries and Illnesses Delayed
On May 12, 2016, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” which required certain employers subject to Federal OSHA regulations to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA via electronic submission no later than July 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, OSHA, via a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, has proposed a December 1, 2017 deadline for the electronic reporting; the electronic reporting system is scheduled to be available on August 1, 2017.
Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, California employers are not required to follow the new requirements and will not be required to do so until "substantially similar" regulations go through formal rulemaking, which would culminate in adoption by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and approval by the Office of Administrative Law.
Cal/OSHA drafted a proposed rulemaking package to conform to the revised federal OSHA regulations by amending the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 14300.35, 14300.36, and 14300.41; these are currently under review with the State.
It is currently unclear what, if any, impact the delay by OSHA will have on the proposed amendments to the California Code.
We will keep you posted as to the changes in California recordkeeping requirements. Please contact Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer with any questions regarding Cal OSHA or your safety program. Dutch is located at Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office and can be reached at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com or by calling 949.271.7208.
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
S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases
January 21, 2015 —
Keri Geiger and Matt Robinson – BloombergStandard & Poor’s (MHFI) agreed to be suspended from rating the biggest part of the commercial-mortgage bond market and pay almost $80 million to state and federal authorities over claims it bent criteria to win business.
S&P misled investors about the methodology it used in 2011 to rate eight commercial-mortgage backed securities, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement today. The company will pay about $58 million to the SEC and an additional $19 million to attorneys general for New York and Massachusetts to settle the matter.
Ms. Geiger may be contacted at kgeiger4@bloomberg.net; Mr. Robinson may be contacted at mrobinson55@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keri Geiger and Matt Robinson, Bloomberg
Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies
October 27, 2016 —
Daniel E. Levin – Florida Construction Law NewsIn Evanston Insurance Company v. Dimucci Development Corportion of Ponce Inlet, Inc., the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida further clarified the standard CGL policy exclusion (L) – the “Your Work” exclusion, one of the several business risk exclusions in a standard CGL policy which insurers and insureds are most likely to encounter in a typical construction defect claim. No. 6:15-cv-486-Orl-37DAB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678, at *26 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2016).
The lawsuit between Evanston Insurance Company and DiMucci Development Corp. of Ponce Inlet Inc. (“DiMucci”) arose out of initial claims by the homeowners’ association at the Towers Grande high rise in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, against DiMucci for various construction defect related issues. The lawsuit alleged that DiMucci’s work was defective on a portion of the high rise condominium project, which caused property damage to other elements of the building that DiMucci was also responsible for constructing. Specifically, pertinent here, the Association alleged water damage as a result of DiMucci’s improper waterproofing of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel E. Levin, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Levin may be contacted at
daniel.levin@csklegal.com
The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis
January 15, 2014 —
Brady Iandiorio - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari.
Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale.
Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Iandiorio may be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute
January 21, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogSo, how were your holidays? Hopefully you were good and didn’t receive a lump of coal from Santa. For one contractor, 2018, wasn’t such a good year. And as its name, Black Diamond, suggests, it did indeed receive a black diamond from the courts. Actually, two of them.
Contractors’ State License Board v. Superior Court (Black Diamond No. 1)
In Contractors’ State License Board v. Superior Court, Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. 1154476 (October 11, 2018), the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) brought disciplinary proceedings against Black Diamond Electric, Inc. (“Black Diamond”), a C-10 Electrical Contractor, for violating: (1) Labor Code section 108.2, which requires individuals performing work as electricians to be certified; and (2) Labor Code section 108.4, which permits uncertified persons seeking on-the-job experience to perform electrical work so long as they are under the direct supervision of a certified electrician.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel RosenMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers
August 03, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogNomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized as a 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers honoree in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the ninth consecutive year that he has been recognized by Super Lawyers.
Super Lawyers, an annual listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and personal achievement, is limited to no more than five percent (5%) of lawyers in a state who are selected through a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluation and peer reviews by practice area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals
June 15, 2017 —
Ellie Perka - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCA drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated.
Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMs. Perka may be contacted at
eperka@ac-lawyers.com
Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds
June 15, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIndemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied.
In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
