Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers
October 14, 2019 —
John Baker - White and Williams LLPThe Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order.
After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Baker, White and Williams LLPMr. Baker may be contacted at
bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion
September 28, 2017 —
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!
Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
Union Handbilling: When, Where, and Why it is Legal
November 06, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsA few days ago, IBEW Local 98 began began protesting a restaurant owned by professional football player Jahri Evans. The organizers are accusing Evans of violating local construction wage standards and are advertising their dispute with “handbills.”
What are handbills?
Walking down Fremont Street in Las Vegas is impossible without one or several characters putting a small business card with “questionable” adult entertainment advertisements in your hand. Some will slap papers to your chest, leaving you no choice but to grab the flyers.
On a different level, this action occurs on a regular basis by union member. But instead of shady characters pushing questionable entertainment, it is union representatives pushing a dispute with a local employer over working conditions. However, in either case the practice is known as i as handbilling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict
February 07, 2018 —
David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights In
California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm.
This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled.
Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA post on The Buckner Blog suggests that “construction defects” are the scariest words for architects, engineers, and contractors. With the possible outcomes of a damaged reputation and astronomical costs, it’s not a surprise. Further, builders are using techniques that “have yet to be tested in real application over time.” As a result, “whoever has the deepest pockets or the most to lose becomes the primary target.”
While a commercial general liability policy might pay for damage caused by a construction defect, the post notes that “it does not, however, cover the costs to remedy your work.” That cost could be “greater than the actual property damages incurred.”
The post recommends a combination of transferring risk and risk control In transferring risk, the builder uses “indemnification and hold harmless agreements as well as inditional insured requirements in their construction contracts.” They advise to “request coverage as an additional insured on a primary basis.”
And then there’s risk control. “Work only with architects, engineers and contactors who have good reputations and a track record of performance. Don’t cut corners.” By some careful planning, builders might “sleep better at night.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements
June 15, 2017 —
Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:
While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Miller may be contacted at
gjm@sdvlaw.com
Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFEngineering.com looks at why the Harmon Tower in Las Vegas will be coming down at some point in the future. Construction stopped, unfinished in 2008. Taking the building down will cost about $400 million, which the building’s owner feels that the developer should pay.
Inspectors concluded that the building did not meet the earthquake specifications for Las Vegas. The contractor claimed that the fault was due to the design specifications and that the supports were further weakened during destructive testing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
