Recent Regulatory Activity
October 25, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSelected federal regulatory actions taken or proposed by several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency:
EPA Actions.
On September 15, 2021, EPA’s Water Office issued a memo rescinding a January 2021 guidance document that purported to provide the regulatory community with EPA’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in the case of County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. That case involved a discharge of pollutants to groundwater which eventually made their way to the Pacific Ocean. Was an NPDES permit required to authorize this discharge, which was not initially made to a navigable body of water? The text of the Clean Water Act provided little guidance, and the matter has become very controversial. The Court held that if the discharge was the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge, a permit may be required, and the Court described some factors that could influence a determination that there was the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. However, EPA has rescinded the January 2021 guidance, opining that EPA’s earlier analysis was inconsistent the Court’s opinion, and that the guidance was issued without proper deliberation within EPA or with its federal partners. Until new guidance is prepared, EPA will continue to apply “site-specific, science-based evaluations” to resolve these questions. On October 1, 2021, EPA released its “Climate Adaption Action Plan.” Briefly, EPA will take steps to ensure that its programs and policies consider current and future impacts of climate change and how the impacts disproportionately affect certain underserved or environmental justice communities. The agency’s air and water quality programs, contaminated sites activities and chemical safety and pollution prevention programs will be analyzed to determine their impact. Also on October 1, 2021, EPA released its draft FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan to protect health and the environment. The plan, essentially an internal directive to all offices and regions, reflects a new “foundational principle”—to advance justice and equity by taking on the climate crisis and taking decisive action to advance civil rights and environmental justice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump
September 03, 2014 —
Lorraine Woellert – BloombergThe collapse in U.S. home prices that stoked the worst recession since the Great Depression wasn’t quite as severe as initially estimated, according to data from S&P/Case-Shiller.
Property values nationally fell 26 percent from the February 2007 peak to the December 2011 trough, not 34 percent as previously reported, revised data showed last week. The index will now be issued monthly rather than quarterly.
The change is the result of CoreLogic Inc. (CLGX)’s $6 million purchase of the S&P/Case-Shiller index from technology company Fiserv Inc. in March 2013. Case-Shiller has spent more than a year retrofitting its model with CoreLogic’s bigger, higher-quality data set, leading to a change in how the index looks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lorraine Woellert, BloombergMs. Woellert may be contacted at
lwoellert@bloomberg.net
Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims
April 26, 2011 —
Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq.A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2010), considerably shortens the time limit for bringing many construction defect lawsuits. Homeowners and homeowner associations risk losing the right to seek reimbursement from builders, developers and other construction professionals unless they carefully and quickly act upon discovery of evidence of any potential construction defect.
The Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims
Colorado’s construction defect statute of limitations limits the time for homeowners and homeowners associations to bring lawsuits for construction defects against “construction professionals,” including developers, general contractors, builders, engineers, architects, other design professionals, inspectors and subcontractors. The statute requires homeowners and associations to file suit within two years “after the claim for relief arises.” A claim for relief “arises” when a homeowner or association discovers or reasonably should have discovered the physical manifestation of a construction defect.
The two-year time limitation applies to each construction defect separately, and will begin to run upon the appearance of a “manifestation” of a construction defect (which may include, for example, a condition as simple as a roof leak or drywall cracks), even if the homeowner or association does not know the cause of the apparent problem.
The Smith Opinion and its Effect on the Statute of Limitations
In Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., the plaintiff homeowner, Mrs. Smith, slipped on ice that had accumulated on her sidewalk because of a leaking gutter and suffered injury. When she first noticed the leak, she reported it to her property manager, who reported it to the builder. The builder attempted to repair the gutter, unbeknownst to Mrs. Smith, and she did not notice further problems until approximately one year after she first observed the leak, when she fell and suffered serious injury. She sued the builder within two years of her injury, but nearly three years after she first learned of the leak.
The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed Mrs. Smith’s claims as untimely and held that under the construction defect statute of limitations, the two-year period for suing for injuries due to construction defects begins when the homeowner first observes the physical manifestation of the defect, even if the resulting injury has not yet occurred. The court acknowledged that this ruling could result in “unfair results,” especially if a serious and unforeseeable injury occurs more than two years after the first time the homeowner noticed the problem, and as a result the victim is unable to seek redress from those responsible for the defect.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq. of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak, P.C., and they can be contacted through their web site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors
March 28, 2022 —
Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis BrisboisNewark, N.J. (March 21, 2022) - Late in 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed the issue of allocating damages in personal injury cases in which the plaintiff asserts claims against successive tortfeasors, such as medical malpractice in the treatment of a slip and fall injury caused by negligence. The decision in Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199 (2021) overruled and replaced the long-held principles established in Ciluffo v. Middlesex General Hospital, 146 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1977) regarding successive liability. Ciluffo held that, when an initial tortfeasor settles before trial, the non-settling defendants in a successive tort were entitled to a pro tanto credit for the settlement amount against any damages assessed against them. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in 2020, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey last year, abandoned that framework for one more consistent with statutory contribution law in the Garden State.
In Glassman v. Friedel, 465 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division held that the application of the principles in Ciluffo in a negligence case has no support in modern jurisprudence, thus limiting its application. It rejected the holding in Ciluffo in light of the state legislature’s enactment of the Comparative Negligence Act, which requires juries to apportion damages between successive events and apportion fault among the parties responsible for each event. The appellate division went on to hold that a non-settling, successive tortfeasor may present proofs at trial as to the negligence of the settling tortfeasor, and that the burden of proof as to the initial tortfeasor’s negligence being the proximate cause of the second causative event indeed lies on the non-settling defendant. In sum, the appellate division in Glassman established steps the jury can use to determine successive tortfeasor liability, but largely treated it as one, attenuated incident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and
Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs
July 20, 2020 —
Stefanie A. Salomon - Peckar & AbramsonThe Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America (INVEST in America) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 18, 2020 and is making its way up to Congress. The bill will create millions of jobs and provide substantial investment in the nation’s deteriorating highways, bridges and public transit systems. The bill also endeavors to leave behind a smaller carbon footprint, a major improvement for the nation’s biggest source of carbon pollution.
Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of the nation’s infrastructure earns a grade of D+, and there exists an estimated $2 trillion funding gap to bring it into a state of good repair by 2025. While Americans have benefited from a century of infrastructure building, neglect has befallen our once greatest achievements – the roadways and arteries that led to the explosive growth of our nation. In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, by 2016 that number fell to 1.5 percent resulting in the substandard conditions that now confront us. Stated more bluntly, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and immediate investment in required to bring it up to par. The INVEST in America Act is our “immediate” opportunity to start replacing the outdated systems of the past with smarter, safer, and more resilient infrastructure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & AbramsonMs. Salomon may be contacted at
ssalomon@pecklaw.com
Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe eleventh defendant has entered a guilty plea in the ongoing federal investigation of construction defect fraud in the Las Vegas area. Mahin Quintero plead guilty to producing a false authentication feature, a misdemeanor. Ms. Quintero’s part in the scheme was to falsely authenticate signatures on loan documents for straw buyers. Ms. Quintero stated in court that she had been ordered to destroy her notary book three years ago. According to her plea bargain, the straw buyers did not appear in front of her when she notarized their signatures. As part of the scheme, the straw buyers would take control of homeowners associates, sending construction defect complaints and repairs to favored firms.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected
July 19, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGovernor Brown Signs Legislation Increasing Cal/OSHA Fines
Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
Specific increases are listed below (all increases refer to maximum fines, Cal/OSHA has discretion as to the amount of the fine when issuing the citation):
- Section 6427 of the Labor Code was amended to increase fines, not of a serious nature, from $7,000 for each violation to $12,471 for each violation.
- Section 6429 of the Labor Code has increased fines for repeat violations; raising the maximum fine from $70,000 to $124,709 for each violation. Additionally, Section 6429 also raised the minimum fine for repeat violations from $5,000 to $8,908.
- Section 6431 raised fines for posting or recordkeeping violations from $7,000 to $12,471 per violation.
Full text of the penalty section of the labor code may be found
here
California OSHA Emergency Action Plan elements revised; California now more consistent with Federal Standards
Revisions to General Safety Orders section 3220(b) became effective on June 5, 2017 and contain two minor changes for California employers with regards to Emergency Action Plans (EAP).
The first change requires that an employer’s EAP be more detailed in describing the type of evacuation that is to be performed, not just the route for an evacuation. The previous element of the EAP simply required that the plan contain, “[e]mergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments.” The current element of the EAP requires that, “[p]rocedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments,” be identified.
The second change clarifies the language surrounding employees performing rescue or medical duties. Previously the only requirement in the EAP regarding rescue and medical duties was for employees that performed rescue and medical duties. The current version requires that the EAP contain, “[p]rocedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties. The use of the word and created potential gaps in plans as it is likely that employees may not be performing both rescue and medical duties, instead performing just rescue or medical duties. Plans must now include procedures to be followed by employees who perform either rescue or medical duties.
It is recommended that your EAP be in writing and updated to comply with the revised General Safety Orders section 3220. The full text of General Safety Orders section 3320 can be seen
here. Please contact us if you would like further details regarding your Emergency Action Plan.
Deadline for Electronic Submission of OSHA 300 Log Records for Injuries and Illnesses Delayed
On May 12, 2016, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” which required certain employers subject to Federal OSHA regulations to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA via electronic submission no later than July 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, OSHA, via a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, has proposed a December 1, 2017 deadline for the electronic reporting; the electronic reporting system is scheduled to be available on August 1, 2017.
Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, California employers are not required to follow the new requirements and will not be required to do so until "substantially similar" regulations go through formal rulemaking, which would culminate in adoption by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and approval by the Office of Administrative Law.
Cal/OSHA drafted a proposed rulemaking package to conform to the revised federal OSHA regulations by amending the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 14300.35, 14300.36, and 14300.41; these are currently under review with the State.
It is currently unclear what, if any, impact the delay by OSHA will have on the proposed amendments to the California Code.
We will keep you posted as to the changes in California recordkeeping requirements. Please contact Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer with any questions regarding Cal OSHA or your safety program. Dutch is located at Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office and can be reached at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com or by calling 949.271.7208.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted
June 29, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's counterclaim arising out of construction defects. Centrex Homes v. Zurich Specialties London Limited, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77212 (D. Nev. May 19, 2017).
Centrex, the general contractor, was sued by homeowners in a residential development known as Liberty Hill Estates. The suit alleged that defective work had been performed by Centrex's subcontractors, one of which was Valley Concrete Company, Inc. The insurer had issued a policy to Valley and Centrex was an additional insured. The insurer agreed to defend, but only paid a portion of the defense fees and costs because the policy only covered Centrex as to liability arising from Valley's work. The insurer refused to pay defense costs incurred prior to March 28, 2012 the date of notice of claims arising from Valley's work.
Centrex then filed suit against the insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The insurer claimed that Centrex failed to cooperate by unilaterally switching counsel without prior notification to the insurer. This deprived the insurer of the right to control the defense and discharged the insurer's obligations under the policy. Centrex moved to dismiss the counterclaim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
