Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!
May 06, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPThis case arose from an alleged trip and fall on an uneven surface in a parking lot outside of BWBO’s client’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleged more than $385,000 in past medical specials (with high potential for future care and treatment) with exposure in excess of $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff named as Defendants BWBO’s client as well as several entities related to their landlord.
Early in the case, Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Senior Associate D. Ryan Efros moved for summary judgment based on terms of the restaurant’s lease. They argued that based on the lease, the duty to maintain the surface of the parking lot fell exclusively to the landlord, rather than the restaurant’s client. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the prevailing case law held that any agreement between a tenant and its landlord does not preclude a plaintiff from asserting either or both defendants breached their duties of care. Jeff and Ryan distinguished that case and successfully persuaded the Court that there could be no contractual duty and no common law duty to maintain the parking surface, clearing the way for the court to grant summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)
December 21, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2).
Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025
September 16, 2024 —
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWe are thrilled to announce that David M. McLain, a founding partner of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC, has been recognized in the prestigious publication, The Best Lawyers in America® 2025. David has earned this honor for his outstanding work in Construction Law and Litigation – Construction.
For over two decades, David has been a leading figure in the field of construction law. His dedication to providing exceptional legal services to developers, general contractors, and other construction professionals has set him apart as a trusted advisor and advocate in the Colorado construction industry. His inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025 is a testament to his hard work, legal acumen, and the respect he has garnered from his peers.
About The Best Lawyers in America®
The Best Lawyers in America® is one of the oldest and most esteemed peer-review publications in the legal profession. Each year, lawyers are nominated and evaluated by their peers based on their professional expertise and achievements. Only a select few receive this honor, making it a significant recognition of excellence in the legal field.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project
December 07, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC (“Lennar”) built a twenty-eight-building, 150-unit condominium project containing twenty-four discrete phases over a seven-year span. The condominium association subsequently brought an action against Lennar and others alleging design and construction defects to four main components of the common elements: “decks and columns,” “roofing/flashing,” “exterior walls/flashing/building envelope,” and “irrigation system.” In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims with respect to six of the twenty- eight buildings were barred by Massachusetts’s six-year statute of repose, G. L. c. 206 § 2B.
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously held that all twenty-eight of the condominium’s buildings should be treated as a single improvement for purposes of application of the statute of repose. Subsequently, the court certified the following question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Where the factual record supports the conclusion that a builder or developer was engaged in the continuous construction of a single condominium development comprising multiple buildings or phases, when does the six-year period for an action of tort relating to the construction of the condominium’s common or limited common elements start running?
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements
April 13, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years.
On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations.
What Does This Mean for California Employers?
California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months.
Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements
Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection.
Looking to the Future
Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission.
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
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at
dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage
July 30, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor.
McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control.
In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
US Moves to Come Clean on PFAS in Drinking Water
September 18, 2023 —
Pam McFarland, Debra K. Rubin & Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordCongress has allocated billions of dollars to address contamination caused by the ubiquitous class of “forever” chemicals known as PFAS—with billions more also earmarked in recent legal settlements with manufacturers—but drinking water managers, construction sector experts and other stakeholders say the true cost of cleanup could be much higher.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record,
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know
July 20, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsOn June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes.
1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years
Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.”
2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks
Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
