Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery
April 04, 2022 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordMassachusetts' officials are bracing for a lengthy recovery process following the March 26 fatal collapse during demolition of a section of a hulking Brutalist-era parking garage in Boston. JDC Demolition was razing the Government Center structure to make way for a 410,000-sq-ft life-sciences complex, when a multistory portion near the top failed, killing 51-year-old operating engineer Peter Monsini.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage
December 29, 2020 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPBack in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers.
Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation
June 08, 2020 —
Gregory S. Capps & Michael E. DiFebbo - White and Williams LLPOn April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred.
In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will the AI Frenzy Continue in 2025?
January 14, 2025 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn AEC technology, 2024 was undoubtedly the year of AI. Every company seemed to announce its pledge to embrace artificial intelligence in the coming years, not to mention the numerous startups that peppered their pitch decks with promises of bleeding-edge innovation.
Tech developers who had been using machine learning before the generative AI boom were delighted. They no longer needed to invest significant resources in convincing the industry of AI’s potential. The mainstream success of generative AI in 2024 created a ripple effect, making AEC firms eager to explore and adopt AI solutions.
Many all-digital startups also got a boost from the AI frenzy, even though many significant innovations happened in hardware and material technology that did not rely on AI.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit
December 13, 2021 —
George Morrison - White and Williams LLPOn November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow.
Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
- The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
- The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
- The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
George Morrison, White and Williams LLPMr. Morrison may be contacted at
morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com
French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate
April 20, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known
coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people.
As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order).
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”
July 10, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Orchard Hill Building Company’s (Orchard) complaint that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination erroneously found that the waters at issue were “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the Corps and EPA had promulgated a new rule re-defining “waters of the United States” in 2015—which is now being challenged in the courts—the Court of Appeals noted that this case is controlled by the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Corps, directing it to determine if there was a significant nexus, as required.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit
October 01, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to State Farm based upon the insured's alleged concealment of the truth when questioned about a fire that destroyed his home. Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17312 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2014).
A fire destroyed the insured's home. He reported the loss to State Farm, who assigned Rob Raker to investigate the claim. Coverage was denied because State Farm contended that the "Intentional Acts" and "Concealment or Fraud" conditions of the homeowner's policy were violated.
The insured sued State Farm. The district granted summary judgment to State Farm after finding that some of the answers the insured gave to Raker were misleading and material. The court determined that the insured failed to identify multiple tax liens and judgments when questioned about his financial status.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
