The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”
February 14, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021.
Background
The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCityCenter has raised a scenario out of a blockbuster movie in which an earthquake causes the tower to fall onto the Cosmopolitan or the Crystals mall, leading to lawsuits, investigations, and “plummeting stock prices.” But that didn’t sway Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Gonzales from putting a hold on the demolition of the tower. FM Global, CityCenter’s insurer, has requested more time to examine the building’s problems in order to determine how to act on CityCenter’s claim of total loss.
Tutor Perini, the company that built the tower, agrees with the delay, since any monies from FM Global would reduce Tutor Perini’s liability. If FM Global denies the claim, the price for the builder would go up, should they fail at trial. That trial is now scheduled for April.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana Feld Welcomes Six Attorneys to the Firm in Q4 of 2023
January 16, 2024 —
Linda Carter - Kahana FeldKahana Feld is pleased to announce the addition of six attorneys to the team in the fourth quarter of 2023. We are excited to have each of these individuals on the team.
In our Houston office, Kahana Feld welcomes Partner Donald Loving II and Attorney Elliott Wright. Mr. Loving is a member of the General Liability and Trucking & Transportation practice groups. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Houston and has over 30 years of litigation and trial experience, including working as staff & corporate counsel for several prominent insurance carriers including GEICO, Progressive, USAA and Travelers. Mr. Wright is a member of the Construction Defect, General Liability, and Trucking & Transportation practice groups. He earned his Juris Doctor from SMU Dedman School of Law, and has extensive litigation and insurance defense experience.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Carter, Kahana FeldMs. Carter may be contacted at
lcarter@kahanafeld.com
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability
May 10, 2022 —
Rafael Vergara & Jhonattan N. Gonzalez - White and WilliamsOn April 26, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals described that in toxic tort cases a plaintiff can only establish liability-creating causation for an adverse health effect with “expert testimony based on generally accepted methodologies.” See
Francis Nemeth v. Brenntag North America (N.Y. Apr. 26, 2022). The suit involved alleged asbestos exposure from talc.
The plaintiff alleged liability for talc contaminated with asbestos that was ultimately used in a commercial talcum powder, Desert Flower, which the decedent applied daily from 1960 to 1971. At trial, the plaintiff proffered two expert witnesses, a geologist, Sean Fitzgerald, who testified about the “glove box test” and a doctor of internal medicine, Dr. Jacqueline Moline. Fitzgerald’s glove box test consisted of agitating a sample of Desert Flower in a Plexiglas chamber. Fitzgerald concluded that the asbestos fibers in the sample of Desert Flower were “significantly releasable” and that the decedent was exposed to thousands to trillions of fibers through repeated use. Dr. Moline concluded Desert Flower was “a substantial contributing factor” to the decedent’s peritoneal mesothelioma. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Vergara, White and Williams and
Jhonattan N. Gonzalez, White and Williams
Mr. Vergara may be contacted at vergarar@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at gonzalezj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property
October 26, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers.
The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”).
After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board
April 15, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI questioned whether to even write this post.
Because, of course, YOU would never find yourself hightailing it out of town with the California Contractor’s State License Board (“CSLB”) sniffing down your tail pipes.
Then again, mistaken identities occur all the time. So, here’s what you need to know if the CSLB mistakes you for one of “those” contractors.
What violations are subject to CSLB enforcement actions?
The CSLB can take enforcement actions based on any one of numerous violations set forth under the California Business and Professions Code (“B&P Code”), including:
1.
B&P Code §7107: Abandonment of a construction project or operation without legal excuse.
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
Defects, Delays and Change Orders
November 01, 2021 —
Jacob A. Epstein - Construction ExecutiveAs every construction professional is aware, unexpected events and problems are guaranteed on every large project. Defects, delays and change orders are sure to arise, and depending on how they are dealt with and addressed at the time, they can either have minimal effects on the overall project or they can have drastic, long-term and often costly effects, including but not limited to thousands of dollars in legal fees, increases in insurance premiums and/or years of litigation down the road.
There are many reasons why so many large construction projects end up in some type of litigation. Delay claims, construction contract disputes and construction defect lawsuits are so prevalent in certain parts of the country that certain judges designate specific time blocks in their courtrooms for construction cases only—just to deal with the large portions of their case dockets dealing with construction issues at the same time.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jacob A. Epstein, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Epstein may be contacted at
jepstein@haber.law
