Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

December 16, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

June 15, 2020 — L. Stephen Bowers & Joshua Tumen - White and Williams LLP
The United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ensures safe and healthful working conditions for employees by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance. The COVID-19 outbreak has increased demand for N95 filtering face piece respirators (N95 FFRs), limiting availability for workers in healthcare and emergency response. On April 3, 2020, OSHA issued interim guidance for employers to combat the supply shortages of N95 FFRs and to comply with the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR § 1910.134). This guidance will remain in effect until further notice and applies in all industries. Employers must continue to manage their respiratory protection programs and be mindful of N95 FFR shortages. Specifically, employers should identify and evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace, and develop and implement written respiratory protection programs. Businesses should reassess their engineering controls, work practices, and administrative controls to identify any changes they can make to decrease the need for N95 FFRs. Some examples provided in the guidance include using portable local exhaust systems or moving operations outdoors. Employers may also consider temporarily suspending non-essential operations, to the extent such operations are not already suspended due to state mandates. Reprinted courtesy of L. Stephen Bowers, White and Williams LLP and Joshua Tumen, White and Williams LLP Mr. Bowers may be contacted at bowerss@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

February 23, 2016 — William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate Shanna B. Carter on Obtaining Another Defense Award at Arbitration!

January 14, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The case arose from an incident at Plaintiff’s residence where she alleged that a failure to properly diagnose an issue with her HVAC unit led to its destruction, displacement from her home, and damage to her roof and kitchen, resulting in a diminution of value to her house. Jeff and Shanna represented the HVAC contractor, who denied any wrongdoing during the two-day arbitration at which a total of six witnesses were examined. Jeff and Shanna utilized Plaintiff’s own experts’ testimony to successfully challenge liability and bring forth a motion for spoliation, resulting in a complete defense award for Jeff and Shanna’s client, which included an award of costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

March 29, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This may be one that is more for the lawyers than it is for the contractors or owners. If you’ve ever filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication you know the standard is clear. You’re going to lose if the court finds a disputed issue of material fact. In other words, since summary judgment or summary adjudication is such an extreme remedy – you win without having to go to trial after all – the standard is pretty high. Thus, if there’s a dispute as to a material fact (was the light green or was it red?) it’s enough that the court will deny your motion. That is, unless you’re seeking summary judgment or adjudication on a design immunity defense as the next case, Menges v. Department of Transportation, Case No. G057643 (December 24, 2020), reveals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

August 01, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Based on new information … your arbitration award is thrown out! So said the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a district court’s vacatur of the award based upon the award having been procured by fraud. The lower court ruled as it did notwithstanding the fact that the action seeking to have the arbitration award vacated was filed and served beyond the three months allowed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 12. The party attacking arbitration award alleged that during the course of the arbitration hearing, a witness whose testimony was been handled remotely by videoconference was being inappropriately aided: the witness was being instructed remotely – by texting – by the corporate representative for his company, who was entitled to sit in on all portions of the arbitration hearing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

February 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016). Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE

September 26, 2022 — Robin Marth - Construction Executive
Fit. Functionality. Comfort. These are absolute musts for any employee wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for work. Yet for many women in the workplace, finding PPE that fits well remains a challenge. In 2021, women comprised 11% of construction workers, 7.9% of truck drivers and 29% of manufacturing employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and their numbers in these fields continue to increase. Unfortunately, their options for proper-fitting PPE are not growing. "It's difficult to find PPE that fits women, because there is limited availability of these products, or suppliers do not offer them at all," says Brandy Bossle, owner and principal consultant at Triangle Safety Consulting LLC. "We really need suppliers to go out of their way to offer PPE that's cut for both men and women." Private fleet driver and Women in Trucking Image Team member Carol Nixon agrees, saying, "You can find men's hats, gloves, jackets and safety vests everywhere, but not with a female fit." Women can be shaped differently from head to toe—their faces, shoulders, waists, fingers and toes are often narrower, and they often have shorter torsos, among other differences. In order for PPE to fit many women comfortably and properly, these proportions need to be taken into account. In fact, OSHA states on its website that PPE used by women should be based on female body measurement data and that employers should offer PPE in sizes suitable for women. Reprinted courtesy of Robin Marth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Marth may be contacted at media@jjkeller.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES