EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule
January 13, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts.
The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone.
In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision
April 20, 2020 —
J. Kelby Van Patten - Payne & FearsIn Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted.
Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & FearsMr. Van Patten may be contacted at
kvp@paynefears.com
Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals
September 25, 2018 —
Norma Lehman - Construction ExecutiveA few miles outside the city limits of Austin, Texas, construction work is expected to soon begin on the Austin Ridge Bible Church’s tri-level, 80,000-square-foot building. The building will house a 2,500-seat sanctuary, classrooms and other spaces where congregants can gather for prayer and fellowship.
When the project is completed, scheduled for the end of 2019, it will produce a worship place that will significantly reduce the building’s energy costs in the years ahead.
Reprinted courtesy of
Norma Lehman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter
October 10, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013).
The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend.
The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP").
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even
April 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogEarlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed.
The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case
To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . .
Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200).
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
The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem
June 01, 2020 —
Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy - Construction ExecutiveHaving an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think.
State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation
Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at krubinstein@preti.com
Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at nfennessy@Preti.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy
November 02, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured.
Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities
February 20, 2023 —
Allan C. Van Vliet, Cara M. MacDonald, Robert G. Howard & Robert C. Herr - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogCities in the San Francisco Bay Area are frantically working to finalize their state-mandated “housing elements” in their General Plans by the January 31, 2023, deadline imposed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Berkeley, the plans must be approved by HCD
on or before January 31, 2023. California municipalities have extra incentive to get their housing elements approved this year, because the failure to meet the deadline may subject them to a remedy known as
the “builder’s remedy.”
The failure of cities in California to adopt and implement adequate housing elements as part of their General Plans has contributed to the state’s serious housing affordability crisis. The “builder’s remedy” incentivizes cities to meet housing element deadlines, because failure to do so could cause cities to lose control over certain land use entitlement decisions for projects that include housing under the state’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Allan C. Van Vliet, Pillsbury,
Cara M. MacDonald, Pillsbury,
Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and
Robert C. Herr, Pillsbury
Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. MacDonald may be contacted at cara.macdonald@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Herr may be contacted at robert.herr@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
