Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023
February 26, 2024 —
Dominic Donato & Jeff Miragliotta - Kahana FeldEvery year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) publishes their top violations in the construction industry. And typically, the most common violations are consistent year after year. What separates 2023 is the number of citations involving Fall Protection, Scaffolding, Ladders, and the failure to use personal protective equipment (PPE) or other life safety equipment (LSE). The following is the list of the Top Ten OSHA violations for 2023:
(10) Toxic and Hazardous Substances. There were 382 citations issued for “hazardous communication” and improper warnings issued to construction employees.
(9) Excavations. There were 395 citations issued for failure to provide proper and specific excavation requirements and instructions.
(8) Scaffolding – Aerial Lifts. There were 481 citations issued for improper lifting equipment and supports for building scaffolding.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dominic Donato, Kahana Feld and
Jeff Miragliotta, Kahana Feld
Mr. Donato may be contacted at ddonato@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Miragliotta may be contacted at jmiragliotta@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy
August 29, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision that the insured Association of Apartment Owners was entitled to coverage for the attorneys' fees incurred [prior post here].Assoc'n of Apartment Owners of the Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20251 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018).
The District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment to the AOAO, requiring Dongbu to indemnify the AOAO for an award of attorney's fees that an arbitrator ordered the AOAO to pay to the underlying claimants. The claimants prevailed on a claim that their condominium unit incurred water damage due to a common roof leak. Dongbu's policy required it to reimburse those sums that the AOAO was legally obligated to pay as damages because of property damage. The AOAO became legally obligated to pay the claimants' fees once the state court confirmed the arbitration award. Further, the water damage to the home constituted covered property damage under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
City Development with Interactive 3D Models
October 23, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe Finnish city of Hyvinkää has developed a unique internet service for collaborative 3D city planning. It gives real estate owners, investors, developers, designers, authorities, and citizens easy-to-use tools to publish their 3D plans and ideas for the built city environment.
Participants can comment on the 3D plans directly in the city model. The 3D app is integrated with Facebook, which enables further conversation.
Building the 3D City Model
Päivi Tiihonen is the manager of the information services unit of the city’s technical and environmental sector. The city started building a browser-based 3D city model when Tiihonen assumed her position in 2014.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
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
Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved
November 30, 2016 —
Austin D. Moody – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Eighth Circuit recently weighed in on one of the more contentious issues in insurance coverage litigation: is faulty workmanship an occurrence? In Decker Plastics Inc. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., the Eighth Circuit ruled that, under Iowa law, faulty workmanship is an occurrence – as long as it leads to other property damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Moody may be contacted at
adm@sdvlaw.com
Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law
March 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez - CDJ STAFFAccording to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy
October 12, 2020 —
Monte Reel - BloombergBerta Cáceres campaigned to stop a renewable energy project, and the long fight turned her into one of Central America’s most prominent environmentalists. She won a prestigious international prize known as the “Green Nobel” for protecting a river, using some of the award money to purchase a modest bungalow in La Esperanza, her hometown in central Honduras.
Her activism is also what brought three gunmen to her back door.
The men broke into her kitchen around 11:30 p.m. on March 2, 2016. Cáceres heard a noise and called out from her bedroom: “Who’s out there?” Within seconds, a gunman entered her room and shot her dead.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Monte Reel, Bloomberg
Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence
June 10, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (No. B257792, filed 4/28/15, ord. pub. 5/20/15), a California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s trimming of a neighbor’s trees which allegedly damaged the trees was not an accident or occurrence covered by her homeowners insurance, despite a mistaken and good faith belief as to where the property line lay.
Ms. Albert was sued by her adjoining neighbor, who alleged damage to his property when she erected an encroaching fence and pruned nine mature olive trees on his property. The two parcels shared a reciprocal roadway easement providing for access to the main public road. At some point, Ms. Albert erected a fence that was subsequently determined to be on the neighbor’s land, and which enclosed a grove of nine mature olive trees. Ms. Albert claimed that the trees straddled the property line and were mutually owned. She pointed out that she had regularly been notified by the Los Angeles Fire Department to clear the area, and that she had been trimming the trees for years. Thus, she claimed a good faith belief that the trees were hers and that she was required to trim them.
Contending that her trimming had caused severe damage by reducing the aesthetic and monetary value of the trees, the neighbor sued alleging causes of action for trespass to real property and trees; abatement of private nuisance; declaratory relief; and for quiet title. He sought treble damages under Civil Code sections 733 and 3346, for injury to timber or trees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
