OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux
December 06, 2021 —
Megan E. Baroni & Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction ExecutiveOn Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard was issued, with most requirements set to go into effect on Dec. 5. The ETS applies to employers with a total of 100 or more employees company-wide. Employers covered by the ETS would be required to develop, implement and enforce a mandatory vaccination policy, subject to limited exemptions, or allow unvaccinated employees to test regularly and be subject to a mask policy, among other associated recordkeeping, reporting and training requirements.
Almost immediately, the ETS was hit with a number of legal challenges in various courts across the country. On November 6, just a day after the ETS was issued, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the implementation of the ETS until further notice. The Court’s order was not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but has halted implementation of the ETS, at least for the time being. Other legal challenges are already in process, further complicating the issue of if and when the ETS will become effective.
As of November 2021, the ETS is on hold, at least temporarily. That could change any day and the ETS could be back in effect, in whole or in part, or permanently halted. The legal challenges to the ETS are unlikely to end, or diminish, until the Supreme Court has weighed in, making for a few uncertain months ahead.
Reprinted courtesy of
Megan E. Baroni and Jonathan H. Schaefer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Baroni may be contacted at mbaroni@rc.com
Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida
November 18, 2019 —
Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub LiebermanOn July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position.
Reprinted courtesy of
Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit
March 26, 2014 —
Darrell Preston and Aaron Kuriloff – BloombergPervasive cracking has shuttered the $60 million home of a high-school football championship team in Texas after less than two years. Investors in the tax-free bonds that paid for the stadium are unscathed.
Taxpayers in Allen Independent School District north of Dallas and the $29 billion Texas Permanent School Fund, a state bond insurer, are responsible for $119 million of debt that paid for the venue and other facilities, leading officials to find a new site for graduation and possibly games after closing 18,000-seat Eagle Stadium last month.
The development suggests the fund, created in 1854 to help pay for education, shouldn’t be used for stadiums, said Colby Harlow, president of hedge fund Harlow Capital Management. The Permanent Fund has top credit ratings and secures about $55 billion of bonds, according to the Texas Education Agency. The pool has at times reached the limit of debt it can back, preventing districts from accessing it. The guarantee is still a boon to bondholders.
Mr. Merelman may be contacted at smerelman@bloomberg.net; Mr. Sillup may be contacted at msillup@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Darrell Preston and Aaron Kuriloff, Bloomberg
Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person
July 24, 2023 —
Associated Press - BloombergNEW YORK (AP) — Heavy rain spawned extreme flooding in New York’s Hudson Valley that killed at least one person, swamped roadways and forced road closures on Sunday night, as much of the rest of the Northeast U.S. braced Monday for potentially punishing rains.
As the storm moved east, the National Weather Service extended flash flood warnings into Connecticut, including the cities of Stamford and Greenwich, before creeping into Massachusetts. Forecasters said some areas could get as much as 5 inches (12 centimeters) of rain.
In New York's Hudson Valley, rescue teams found the body of a woman in her 30s who drowned after being swept away while trying to evacuate her home, Orange County Executive Steven Neuhaus told WABC-TV. Officials were waiting for the medical examiner's office to arrive, he said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith
May 21, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's unreasonable denial of a defense and indemnity to a lessor/additional insured was found to be in bad faith. Seaway Props. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55998 (W.D. Wash. April 22, 2014).
Seaway leased restaurant space to Ciao Bella Food, LLC. In January 10, 2010, the underlying plaintiff was on her way to the restaurant when she attempted to step down from a concrete platform between the building parking lot and the entrance to the restaurant. Seaway's lease gave Ciao Bella the right to use the common areas, including the parking lot, but did not grant Ciao Bella exclusive control over the common areas. The plaintiff suffered injuries and claimed both Ciao Bella and Seaway were liable.
Seaway's lease required Ciao Bella to maintain a CGL policy and to name Seaway as an additional insured. Ciao Bella did so by securing a policy with Fireman's Fund. Fireman's Fund had notice of the plaintiff's claim by November 2010. Seaway demanded in March 2012 that Fireman's Fund indemnify and defend it. In September 2012, two years after it first learned of the plaintiff's injury, Fireman's Fund denied coverage, asserting that Seaway was not an insured under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”
August 24, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAssociations have authority to pursue as a class, on behalf of all of their respective members, lawsuits “concerning members of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.221. This includes, but is not limited to, the common property or the areas in which the association is responsible. But, what about matters or elements for which the association is not responsible or does not own? For example, issues or damages relative to a specific unit or owner that are prevalent throughout?
The Third District Court of Appeal addressed this question in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1518a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) when in affirmed a class certification by a condominium association relating to the removal and replacement of the condominium building’s defective fire sprinkler system. In affirming the class certification by the condominium association, the Third District maintained:
Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class composed of its members as a matter of law.” “[T]he common interest provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage of the litigation.
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp, supra (internal citations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis
July 10, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s been three months since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (April 30, 2018) and I’ve had a couple of readers (perhaps my only two) ask whether I was going to write about the decision.
I’m not. Well, obviously, that’s not quite true if you’re reading this. Rather, I’ll tell you why I’m writing about not writing about the decision.
Dynamex is certainly an important decision and one that will likely be cited for decades to come. In short, Dynamex changed the nearly 30-year old test, first elucidated in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee.
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
Supreme Court Upholds Prevailing Wage Statute
August 19, 2024 —
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCHistorically, the prevailing wage was calculated by averaging the wages within a certain industry and county. However, in 2018 the Washington Legislature amended the statute so that the prevailing wage would be assessed based on the highest wage set by collective bargaining agreements in the county. The amendment (RCW 39.12.015(3)) reads as follows:
(3)(a)…the industrial statistician shall establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage, usual benefits, and overtime paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in collective bargaining agreements…
(b) For trades and occupations in which there are no collective bargaining agreements in the county, the industrial statistician shall establish the prevailing rate of wage by…conducting wage and hour surveys.
So, for example, if union engineers bargain for a wage, that is the wage all engineers in the county must be paid on public projects. The legislature passed this law for the sake of efficiency because it took significant resources for the Industrial Statistician to compute the prevailing wage for every trade and every county, but the law has significant knock-on effects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
