New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure
April 08, 2024 —
The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLCAUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the
EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health.
Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States.
The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of
The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure.
According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract
March 08, 2021 —
Jeremy P. Brummond - Construction ExecutiveConstruction agreements can be lengthy. They often include terms covering everything from logistics for working on the project site to complicated provisions regarding intellectual property. Many provisions in a construction agreement deal with risk and who is going to pay for damage claims if or when they occur.
However, not all risk-shifting provisions are equally important. While provisions that impose obligations on the contractor to maintain confidentiality, indemnify for personal injury or property damage, or correct defective work can expose a contractor to substantial damage claims and are thus important, contractors can significantly control the amount of damages the owner can claim by including a well-drafted waiver of “consequential damages” provision in the agreement.
Because the waiver of consequential damages can significantly control the amount of damages for which a contractor is assuming risk and greatly limit the owner’s ability to recoup many damages, it is arguably the most important provision in a construction contract. Therefore, it is essential for contractors and owners to carefully consider the waiver of consequential damages before entering into any construction agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy P. Brummond, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Brummond may be contacted at
jbrummond@lewisrice.com
Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case
November 26, 2014 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogOn November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond.
Background
In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency
September 03, 2019 —
Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterIn In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps.
In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLPMs. Vulpio may be contacted at
vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com
Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied
November 24, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment seeking to reject the insured's collapse claim. Gnannn v. United Servs. Auto, Ass'n, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1955 (Conn. Super Ct. July 11, 2019).
The insureds' home was built in 1985 and they purchased their home in 1993. A home inspection reported that some settlement and curing related cracks existed in the slab floor, but no signs of abnormal settlement were noticed. The concrete walls were in overall good condition.
In 2015, the insureds became aware of abnormal cracking in the basement. USAA was informed of the claim but denied coverage in October 2015. The insureds sued USAA. After suit was filed, the insureds hired an engineer, David Grandpre, to inspect their home. He observed severe cracking in the basement walls caused by an expansive chemical reaction within the concrete. The structure was not in imminent peril of falling down, and it continued as insureds' residence. But Mr. Grandpre noticed bulging and bowing, evidence that the concrete basement walls had failed and had begun to move inward due to the lateral pressure of the soil outside the home.
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
Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)
February 27, 2019 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. SquillarioIn Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”
Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders
January 07, 2015 —
William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLPIn Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract.
CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and
William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact
April 17, 2019 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordTennessee highway officials believe an impact from a vehicle’s oversized load is likely to blame for the April 1 partial collapse of a ramp structure at the I-75/I-24 interchange in Chattanooga. The impact caused the outer box beam and railing of the 148-ft-long bridge’s nearly 51-ft main span to fall onto an access ramp, injuring a motorist whose vehicle collided with the debris.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
