When OSHA Cites You
April 22, 2024 —
Michael Metz-Topodas - Construction ExecutiveWith the strong bonds that form among construction project teams, workers looking out for each other helps keep safety foremost in everyone’s mind. But sometimes, even the very best intentions alone can’t prevent an occasional misstep—a forgotten hard hat, a sagging rope line—which can and often does result in an OSHA citation. These regulatory reminders can bring unfortunate consequences: penalties, higher insurance premiums, potential worker injury claims, loss of bidding eligibility, loss of reputation and even public embarrassment, because citations are published on OSHA’s website.
Due to citations’ adverse effects, contractors have incentives to minimize them. They can do this by asserting available defenses, because a citation is only an alleged violation, not a confirmed one. But making defenses available begins well before a citation is issued, well before OSHA arrives to a construction site and well before a violation even occurs. Instead, contractors’ ongoing safety programs should incorporate the necessary measures to preserve OSHA citation defenses in three key areas: lack of employee exposure, lack of employer knowledge and impossibility.
EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE
To sustain a citation against an employer, OSHA must not only identify an applicable standard that the company violated but also show that the violation exposed employees to hazards and risk of injury. Absent evidence of actual exposure, OSHA often makes this showing by asserting that performing job functions necessarily exposes employees to the cited hazard.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Metz-Topodas, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Metz-Topodas may be contacted at
michael.metz-topodas@saul.com
New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify
March 01, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, found the insurer had no right to reimbursement of defense costs paid to defend the insured. Am. W. Home Ins. Co. v. Gjoaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8286 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 30, 2020).
Gjonaj Realty was sued by Viktor Gecaj when he fell from a ladder at the premises managed by Gjonaj Realty. The matter was not tendered to American Western Home Insurance Company until four years after the accident and after a judgment of $900,000 had been entered against Gjonaj Realty after its default. American denied coverage after late notice was given. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the underling action vacated the default judgment. American then agreed to defend under a reservation of rights.
The Appellate Division reversed the vacatur of the default judgment and reinstated the default against the insured. American then advised Gjonaj Realty that it was denying coverage and reserving its right to recover any fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying action.
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
Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom
January 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThere’s been more cheer than usual at Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group this holiday season.
Earlier this month, Quinlan Tom, a construction and business attorney, joined us from McInerney & Dillon, a venerable and well-respected construction boutique firm (we know a lot of folks there) with local roots like us in Oakland, California. We’ve all known Quinlan for a while, so when he decided to join our band of merry legal practitioners, we were quite thrilled.
Being lawyers though, and better at asking than answering questions, we decided to pose a few questions to Quinlan:
Q. So, you’ve just been sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury. So, tell us about your practice.
A. Let me just start with it’s quite an honor to appear in your blog; I’ve been a reader for a while (in secret of course before I got to Wendel Rosen). I’m also excited to join you and the other members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group; as you mention, I’ve known each of you professionally for quite some time and respect each of you tremendously.
I started as a construction litigator right out of law school. I completed three years of mechanical engineering at UC Davis and put that on my resume when I was looking for a job after law school. (In addition, my dad retired after 40 years in the trenches as a union electrician). McInerney & Dillon (“M&D”) and a couple of other firms found that interesting and I ended up starting with M&D. I did find that my engineering studies helped with my acclimation to construction disputes. While I never pretend to be an engineer, it has provided me with a foundation of how the construction process works and how the projects are designed. 26 years later, I continue to enjoy counseling my clients in their construction disputes/issues and still find each construction project I am involved with fascinating.
I have tried, arbitrated and litigated cases for 26 years, from the United States District Court to the California Superior Court and the California Office of Administrative Hearings. I have argued cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal. I counsel my clients into hopefully making the best business decisions available melding the knowledge I have gleaned from my litigation experience with their financial and personal goals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
ACS Obtains Overwhelming Jury Trial Victory for General Contractor Client
March 28, 2022 —
Scott R. Sleight - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCACS is pleased to share news of our recent $19.2 million victory for a general contractor client after a lengthy virtual jury trial involving the Nexus condominium project in downtown Seattle. On Tuesday March 22, 2022, ACS obtained a jury verdict awarding significant damages to our general contractor client and denying nearly all damages claimed against our client by the project owner. The 28-day jury trial commenced via Zoom on January 24 and involved testimony from more than two dozen witnesses on more than 185 discrete change issues and subcontractor pass-through claims as well as counterclaims from the owner for liquidated damages and other damages. Amazingly, after only two days of deliberating the jury reached a verdict resolving all claims overwhelmingly in favor of our general contractor client.
Our client was awarded $19.5 million on its claims totaling $20.6 million and largely defeated the owner’s counterclaims of $4.3 million, with the jury awarding only $318,000 to the owner. This results in a net judgment of $19.2 million in favor of our client. The ACS team, along with the client, worked incredibly hard on this case. The team includes lawyers Scott Sleight, Saki Yamada, Kristina Southwell, Cam Sheldon and paralegals Christina Granquist, Cydney Fermstad, Auzree Hightower, Amy Capell, Samina Helsley and Bernadette Bresee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott R. Sleight, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Sleight may be contacted at
scott.sleight@acslawyers.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.
Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”
The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.
The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial
April 28, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's determination that untimely notice of the loss was prejudicial, eliminating the insurer's coverage obligations. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4492 (10th Cir. March 11, 2014).
In January 2008, the insured's employees detected an inflow of water in a salt mine and feared dissolution of the salt or structural problems. The insured tried to devise a solution. Two and a half million dollars were spent to find the cause of the water inflow and to identify a solution. In April 2010, the insured determined the inflow was caused by an improperly sealed oil well. In July 2010, the insured notified Lexington of the water inflow. The ultimate proof of loss was for $7.5 million, which included remediation measures that the insured had performed before notifying Lexington.
Lexington's all-risk policy required the insured to notify the company in writing as soon as practicable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using
January 06, 2020 —
Jason Lambert - Construction ExecutiveIt is common in construction for a subcontractor or material supplier of any tier to be required to provide a lien waiver when receiving payment. But not all lien waivers are created equal. While at a minimum, a lien waiver, by definition, needs to include a release of liens, it can also include many other terms that can tie up loose ends or resolve potential problems before they begin.
Additional Releases
A typical lien release is going to release any liens and right to claim liens on the subject property. But a lien waiver can also include releases of any claims against surety bonds, other statutory rights or claims, and at its broadest, claims against the paying party. One example of a provision that could help accomplish this is a release of “any right arising from a payment bond that complies with a state or federal statute, any common law payment bond right, any claim for payment, and any rights under any similar ordinance, rule, or statute related to claim or payment rights.” Broad release language can also be used to effectively preclude any claims arising prior to the date of the release.
Payment Representations and Warranties
A typical lien release has no representations or warranties about payment to subcontractors or material suppliers of a lower tier. But contractors can include language requiring the company receiving payment to represent and warrant that all subcontractors of a lower tier have been paid or will be paid within a certain timeframe using the funds provided and that these are material representations and inducements into providing payment. On a related note, if the contract requires subcontractors to provide lien releases from lower tier subcontractors in addition to their own release when seeking payment, contractors can require the sub-subcontractor releases to include representations that they have been paid by the subcontractor to try and tie up payment loose ends all around.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Lambert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Lambert may be contacted at
jason.lambert@nelsonmullins.com
Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways
December 18, 2022 —
Paul Briganti - White and WilliamsOn December 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia held that a total pollution exclusion (TPE) in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify a recycling company in a putative class action alleging PFAS contamination of Georgia waterways. See Grange Ins. Co. v. Cycle-Tex Inc., et al., Order, Civ. A. No. 4:21-cv-00147-AT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2022). The decision adds to a slowly-developing body of case law addressing coverage issues arising out of PFAS-related claims.
In Grange, the insured, Cycle-Tex, Inc., was the operator of a thermoplastics recycling facility in Dalton, Georgia. Cycle-Tex and other defendants – which included chemical suppliers, carpet manufacturers, intermediaries, the City of Dalton and the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste Authority – were named in a putative class action complaint alleging that residents of Dalton had been injured as a result of the defendants’ discharge of PFAS into local waterways. The complaint sought damages for: (1) alleged harm to the residents’ health by virtue of ingesting contaminated water; (2) alleged property damage resulting from the contamination of the public water supply; and (3) the payment of surcharges and heightened water rates as a result of the alleged contamination.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White and WilliamsMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
