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
Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement
October 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015).
Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired.
After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Double-Breasted Dilemma
July 18, 2022 —
Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocsWhat Is A Double-Breasted Operation?
A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Rankins may be contacted at
lrankins@watttieder.com
Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe
March 26, 2014 —
Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker - BloombergA U.S. Senate investigative panel is examining Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and whether the company improperly avoided U.S. taxes by moving profits outside the country, said three people familiar with the inquiry.
The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a hearing in early April, said two of the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity before an official announcement.
Rachel Potts, a spokeswoman for Caterpillar, declined to comment. Two staff members for the subcommittee declined to comment.
In 2009, Daniel Schlicksup, an employee who had worked on tax strategy, alleged in a lawsuit in federal court that Caterpillar used a “Swiss structure” to shift profits to offshore companies and avoid more than $2 billion in U.S. taxes. He also alleged that Caterpillar used a “Bermuda structure” involving shell companies to return profits to the U.S. without paying required taxes.
Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rrubin12@bloomberg.net; Mr. Drucker may be contacted at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker, Bloomberg
Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose
May 07, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittThe House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee voted today to postpone Senate Bill 15-091 indefinitely, effectively killing the bill for the 2015 session.
As originally drafted, the bill would have given Colorado the shortest statute of repose in the United States. Senate amendments softened the impact of the bill somewhat, but it still would have reduced the amount of time that the owners of single-family homes would have to discover construction defects. Proponents argued that this was necessary because Colorado’s harsh weather conditions make it difficult for construction to last longer than five years. Opponents countered that construction defect laws only provide relief when a builder has violated a code or standard, which is unrelated to the expected lifespan of a product.
One of the Representatives noted that states like Alaska have much harsher weather patterns yet allow homeowners to bring claims up to ten years after construction is complete. Another questioned whether the bill would do anything to encourage affordable housing, a topic that has generated substantial media attention in recent months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic WittMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net
Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture
January 26, 2017 —
Justin Rice - Engineering News-RecordThe Delaware River Bridge, which runs between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was shut down indefinitely over the Jan. 22-23 weekend, after a large fracture was discovered in the bridge that connects the turnpikes of the two states. The fracture on a steel truss below the bridge deck on the Pennsylvania side was discovered during a routine check as part of a painting operation. Steel plates were installed to temporarily reconnect the fracture and stabilize the 1.5-mile bridge, which is located in Bucks County on I-276 and accommodates 42,000 vehicles a day. As engineers assess how the damage will impact the entire bridge, a sample from the fractured truss was sent to a forensic lab to determine the cause of the crack. A high-definition video survey is being used to monitor the bridge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Rice, ENRMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricej@enr.com
California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens
May 04, 2020 —
Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsMany businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy.
While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & FearsMr. Thomas may be contacted at
sst@paynefears.com
Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act
October 15, 2014 —
Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLPAs a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLPMr. Milewski may be contacted at
milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com
