SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

December 13, 2021 — George Morrison - White and Williams LLP
On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:

• The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
• The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
• The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

May 06, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s one of the most quoted phrases in legal history: “Shouting fire in a [crowded] theater.” It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1919 decision in Schenck v. U.S. and has come to stand for the proposition that not all speech, in particular dangerous speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The next case also involves a false alarm. But not of the First Amendment kind. In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B281411 (March 8, 2019), a false alarm investigated by maintenance engineering staff led to a Privette Doctrine claim against a property owner when a ladder on which the maintenance staff was standing slipped on wet flooring. Johnson v. Raytheon Lawrence Johnson worked as a maintenance engineer for ABM Facilities Services, Inc. ABM was hired by Raytheon Company, Inc. to staff the control room at one of Raytheon’s facilities in Southern California. Among other things, control room staff monitored water cooling towers owned by Raytheon to ensure that the water in the cooling towers were maintained at minimum levels. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

October 20, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found no coverage for the insured developer after water intruded into the homeowners' basements. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleland Homes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108030 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2016). The underlying complaint alleged that the subdivision was designed to create a run off of ground water onto the lots where Cleland built plaintiffs' homes. The design of the subdivision and construction of the homes was defective in that the plaintiffs' homes were situated so that the water table underneath their homes was so high that their basements flooded and damage occurred to the structure of their homes. Cleland was allegedly negligent in designing and/or constructing the homes or negligent in the water drainage plan for the subdivision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

January 09, 2023 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
Key Senate and House leaders have reached a bipartisan agreement on a new Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that would authorize more than $37 billion in federal funds for 25 new and five modified Army Corps of Engineers flood and hurricane protection, harbor dredging and other civil works projects across the U.S. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

November 10, 2016 — C. Lily Schurra – Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
In a recent policyholder-friendly decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found coverage under an exception to the faulty workmanship exclusion in an all-risk policy. The decision provided the insureds with millions to cover the cost of replacing the faulty work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Ms. Schurra may be reached at cls@sdvlaw.com

---

The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Wouldn’t it be nice to know ahead of time what an OSHA inspector will be looking for when he comes to your work site? Well, I know the secret. And, it’s not really a secret. Just look at OSHA’s top ten citation standards and it becomes quite clear. In 2015, OSHA’s top ten most frequently cited violations are:

1. Fall protection (C) 2. Hazard communication 3. Scaffolding (C)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

April 19, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between two insurers, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Nevada law in finding that the burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applies was on the insured. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). Ironshore insured seven subcontractors. The policy included an exclusion providing there was no coverage for any property damage for the subcontractors' for "work performed prior to the policy inception." An exception to the exclusion provided that the exclusion did not apply to property damage that was "sudden and accidental and takes place within the policy period." The seven subcontractors were sued for work they had performed. Zurich defended and indemnified the subcontractors. Zurich then sued Ironshore seeking contribution and indemnification for defense and settlement costs. The parties stipulated that all construction work at issue had been completed before the inception of Ironshore's policy and that none of the complaints against the subcontractors alleged that sudden and accidental damage had occurred after the inception of Ironshore's policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---