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
DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) is hosting a new “dynamic roofing system, installed at the Security Forces Building at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas,” which “uses a combination of technologies that heat and cool air and water, produce electricity, and collect rainwater.” If the project is successful, it “could be replicated at thousands of DoD buildings throughout the country in the near future.”
Builder described the process: “A retrofitted metal roof is installed over the existing roof, which creates a cavity between the existing and new roofs. Within that cavity insulation, solar thermal heating systems and cooling of air and water for the building can be installed. The roofing, insulation, hydronic solar thermal systems, engineered air pathways, and photovoltaic cells are designed to work symbiotically.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects
August 20, 2019 —
Brian Hearst - Construction ExecutiveThis is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss.
Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship
Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship.
If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work.
For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at
Brian.Hearst@lockton.com
The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return
June 06, 2022 —
Lizzy Burden - BloombergTenants flocking to London are driving up rents in the capital, reversing the pandemic “race for space” and adding to the UK’s cost-of-living crisis.
A record 30% of homes let in London this year went to people who previously lived outside the city, according to estate agent Hamptons. The surrounding areas of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey –- known as the Home Counties – now account for more than half of tenants moving in.
However, people are tending to move to London for lifestyle reasons rather than because they are being summoned back to the office, Hamptons said. Study and changes in family circumstances are often providing the trigger.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lizzy Burden, Bloomberg
Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogThe lawsuits required to perfect and foreclose upon a lien have confused lien claimants and their attorneys for years. This confusion was recently demonstrated in a recent case entitled Founders Kitchen and Bath, Inc. v. Alexander, No. A15A1262, 2015 WL 6875026 (Ga. App. 2015).
In the case, the trial court granted an owner’s motion for summary judgment against a subcontractor that sought to foreclose on its materialman’s lien. In deciding to reverse the trial court’s decision, the Court held that issues of material fact still existed as to whether the owner and subcontractor were in privity of contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute
February 18, 2019 —
Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company, 2019 WL 323702 (Wis. Jan. 25, 2019), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the issue of contribution rights as among co-insurers.
Steadfast and Greenwich issued pollution liability policies to different entities that performed sewer-related services for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) at different times. MMSD sought coverage under both policies in connection with underlying claims involving pollution-related loss. Both insurers agreed that MMSD qualified as an additional insured under their respective policies, but Greenwich took the position that its coverage was excess over the coverage afforded under the Steadfast policy, at least for defense purposes, and that as such, it had no defense obligation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Margolies, Traub LiebermanMr. Margolies may be contacted at
bmargolies@tlsslaw.com
EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule
January 13, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts.
The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone.
In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes
September 20, 2017 —
Engineering News-RecordThe Dept. of Homeland Security has awarded eight contracts to companies to develop prototypes for the Trump administration’s proposed wall along sections of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The contracts are divided evenly between concrete and nonconcrete options. DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency didn’t specify what sort of materials would be used in the nonconcrete barriers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR staff may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
