What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers
March 06, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPEffective Feb. 3, 2023, California has implemented new, “permanent,” COVID-19 standards. The new regulations were adopted by Cal/OSHA on Dec. 15, 2022, but only became effective upon the review and final approval by the Office of Administrative Law. These non-emergency regulations—slated to remain in effect for two years—supplant the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that have been in effect since early in the pandemic.
The non-emergency regulations abandon core parts of the ETS, include new definitions for key terms, and update requirements for important provisions. We discuss the primary changes below. The regulation itself is available online, as well as a copy provided by Cal/OSHA comparing the differences between the ETS and the new regulation.
An End to Exclusion Pay
The non-emergency regulations do not require employers to maintain exclusion pay (an excluded employee’s earnings, seniority, rights, and benefits). All that employers must do under the new regulations is inform confirmed COVID-19 cases and close contacts about potential COVID-19 benefits under federal or local laws (where applicable). This does not affect employees who may receive paid time off under other federal, state, and local laws, as well as through collective bargaining agreements or other employer policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones
May 24, 2018 —
Patrick J. Paul - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogPresident Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congress in December included a new community development program designed to promote investment in low income urban and rural communities. These “Opportunity Zones” provide that every Governor may nominate up to 25% of qualifying low-income Census tracts for consideration in the program which provides substantial reductions on capital gains taxes with the greatest benefits to those holding their investments for a period of at least 10 years.
States were required by March 21st to submit nominations or request a 30 day extension to subsequently submit. The Treasury Department in turn has 30 days from the date of submission to designate the nominated zones. On April 9, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS formally dedicated opportunity zones in 18 states including Arizona. The Department will make future designations as submissions by the states that have requested an extension are received and certified.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & WilmerMr. Paul may be contacted at
ppaul@swlaw.com
The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe final part of the Louvre Abu Dhabi’s 180-metres (almost 600 feet) long domed roof was put into place on Monday, according to Arabian Business. The 12,000 tonne dome is “made up of a steel structure, weighing 7,000 tonnes (almost as much as the Eiffel Tower), and a further 5,000 tonnes of aluminum cladding.”
Carlos Antonio-Wakim, executive director of development at master developers TDIC, stated (as quoted by Arabian Business) that construction was on schedule for the opening of the museum, which is on Saadiyat Island, by the end of next year.
“The concrete works under the dome is all done, so we have all the galleries up and fit-out of those galleries has already begun,” Antonio-Wakim told Arabian Business. “There is also a lot of electromechanical works. A complex project like this requires a lot of mechanical and electrical coordination.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay
January 02, 2024 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogIt should be simple: you provide a service, and your customer pays you for that service. Unfortunately, it is not always so simple.
Not getting paid for your work can be one of the most frustrating issues, especially for small businesses. It also does not take much for money matters to
lead to larger disputes. So, what should small business owners do in these cases?
1. Start with a reminder notice
Most sources, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agree that business owners should not begin by escalating the situation. Take time to review and fully understand the circumstances of this individual case. Then, begin with resending the invoice or sending reminders to pay.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers
September 13, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is proud to announce that 30 lawyers were recognized in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 and eight were recognized as “Ones to Watch.”
Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.
Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits
January 06, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAfter a four-day trial, an Arizona federal jury found that Western Truck Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance broker, was negligent in selling Madison Alley Transportation and Logistics Inc. a business interruption policy with inadequate annual limits. Based on its finding of negligence, the jury determined that the broker was liable for $685,000 of $1,000,000 in damages suffered by Madison Alley as a result of a flood in its warehouse. The verdict and Complaint, filed in Arizona state court before the case was removed, can be found here and here.
In June 2016, a subtenant in Madison Alley’s warehouse broke a sprinkler line while operating a forklift, causing the warehouse to flood. The warehouse was used to store and deliver retail display goods, and Madison Alley was unable to do business during the five months of repairs.
Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses.
Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed
January 27, 2020 —
Ryan M. Charlson - Florida Construction Law NewsIf construction defect claims are not timely filed, Florida Statutes provide design and construction companies with a formidable defense. As a case in point, a Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge issued an Order granting summary judgment based on Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c), Florida’s Statute of Limitations governing actions founded on alleged construction defects.
In Covenant Baptist Church, Inc. v. Vasallo Construction, Inc. and Lemartec Engineering & Construction Corporation, Plaintiff alleged multiple construction defects against two Defendants. The alleged defects were focused on water intrusion through the roofing systems and were known to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2006. However, four years and eleven months later, Plaintiff filed suit acknowledging that the building had “been plagued with water intrusion issues for a number of years,” and that Plaintiff’s complaints “regarding the water intrusion [had] been met largely with ‘band-aid’ type ineffective repairs.”
Lemartec Engineering & Construction Corporation (“Lemartec”), filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to multiple counts and rested its Motion squarely on the shoulders of Florida’s four-year statute of limitations. Importantly, the statute begins to run “where there has been notice of an invasion of legal rights or a person has been put on notice of his right to a cause of action” Snyder v. Wernecke, 813 So.2d 213,216 (Fla 4th DCA 2002) (citing City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1954)). Plaintiff attempted to bypass the four-year nature of the statute by trying to classify the defects in question as latent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & KissaneMr. Charlson may be contacted at
Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
