Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage
October 10, 2022 —
Sara C. Tilitz & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLPPer- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have served as a key component in numerous industrial and consumer products for decades. These “forever chemicals,” which have been associated with environmental contamination and adverse health outcomes, have garnered steadily-growing attention from regulatory authorities, the plaintiffs’ bar, and, by extension, the insurance industry.
The current “case to watch” regarding PFAS is the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Gergel presiding. The MDL is comprised of well over 2,000 cases brought by both individual plaintiffs and state and local governments arising out of the manufacturing and/or use of aqueous film forming foam, also known as AFFF. The use of AFFF, which was historically employed in firefighting operations, including those undertaken by the United States military, allegedly causes the release of two types of PFAS into the environment – PFOS and PFOA.
On September 16, 2022, Judge Gergel denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant 3M Company and other AFFF defendant manufacturers on the government contractor immunity defense. Although not an insurance coverage decision, the ruling is significant in the context of PFAS litigation and could have insurance coverage implications.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List
June 15, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPLAS VEGAS, Nev. – JUNE 14, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney
Casey Quinn has been selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers are selected to receive this honor. Quinn will be recognized in the July 2017 issue of
Mountain States Super Lawyers Magazine.
Quinn, an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focuses his practice in complex commercial and construction litigation. He represents a variety of business entities in commercial disputes, including contract claims, business torts, privacy lawsuits, defamation, and fraud. Quinn is the immediate-past chair of the Construction Law section of the State Bar of Nevada and has successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Nevada, as well as settled disputes through various forms of conflict resolution including mediation and arbitration.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
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 http://www.newmeyeranddillion.com/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later
September 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Los Angeles Register, “Southern California homeowners often have repairs or improvements done to their property without getting the required building permits,” which sometimes, may be fine, but other times it leads to disastrous problems.
The Register used an example of a San Clemente couple who had issues selling their home when a building inspector found that weep screeds were covered up by a cement deck installed by a contractor. The contractor also failed to get building permits for the work that was done. The buyer stated that repairs needed to be done prior to the sale.
According to Mac MacKenzie, an agent at Coldwell Banker in Irvine, the situation is not uncommon: “We’ve had (permit problems) kill deals before, and we’ve had them almost kill deals. If it’s serious enough, it can stop a transaction from closing.”
Permits are generally required “for any alteration, major repairs or new construction,” according to the Register, while they are not necessary “for minor repairs, such as fixing leaky pipes, painting, new carpeting or new kitchen countertops.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times
February 27, 2023 —
Adam M. Tuckman & Brittney M. Wiesner - ConsensusDocsIn these times of persistent inflationary forces and efforts to tame the consequences through rising interest rates, economic uncertainty abounds in the United States and around the world. As an approximately $1 trillion contributor to the economy in the United States (4.2% of GDP in 2021) alone according to the Associated General Contractors of America, the health and the growth of the construction industry is certainly susceptible to these rapidly changing macroeconomic conditions.
Presently, an unanswered question is how project developers will react to unpredictable fluctuations in project costs and interest rates. Although it seems unlikely to be a prevalent response, it is possible that substantial increases in borrowing, labor, or material costs would cause owners to pull the plug on projects that are in the advanced stages of construction. For projects in the nascent stages of development or construction, however, the calculous for owners becomes more tenuous. Both public and private owners may find it more prudent to indefinitely suspend or cancel pending or ongoing projects due to any, or a combination of, forecasted increases in project costs, shrinking funding, higher borrowing costs, or macro-economic uncertainty. Facing this quandary, how would an owner already under contract with a constructor and design team suspend or cancel its project? One potential approach is to invoke a termination for convenience clause found in the parties’ contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Brittney M. Wiesner, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Tuckman may be contacted at atuckman@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
My Construction Law Wish List
December 31, 2014 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI’ve been good this year.
Not great mind you, but good, and good is the standard, right?
So, here’s my construction law wish list this holiday season:
1.More Transparency. So much uncertainty and resultant litigation exists for the simple reason that contractors and subs don’t know when a higher tiered contractor or owner (on a lender financed project) has been paid for their work. So how about a requirement that owners, contractors and subcontractors of all tiers be required to disclose when payment applications are submitted, when payments are made and in what amount, and what pay applications have been paid. And because I’m pretty sure I’m at least within the 20th percentile of “good” this year how about a requirement that this information be provided through an online database accessible by all persons working on projects valued at over a certain dollar amount, say $500,000.
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
Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District
January 02, 2019 —
Miami Herald - Engineering News-RecordDec. 11 -- Florida's incoming governor stopped short of demanding South Florida water managers step down over a contentious land deal with sugar farmers, saying he would instead await a recommendation from his transition team. That doesn't mean their days may not be numbered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBrad Diede has been selected as the new executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, according to GlobeSt.com. “ACEC California is dedicated to strengthening the engineering and surveying professions, protecting the general public and promoting the use of the private sector in building a better California.” Paul Meyer is retiring after 32 years as the executive director. Diede brings over ten years’ experience as executive director of the California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors. He will begin work at ACEC California January 27th.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
