Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

May 06, 2019 — Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

June 15, 2017 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

May 10, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Lawsuits filed for recovery due to the faulty design and installation of doors and windows by homeowners across the country were found to allege multiple occurrences. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. 53631 (C.D. Iowa March 31, 2017). The underlying lawsuits alleged that Pella Corporation's windows were defectively designed, manufactured, or installed, and allowed water intrusion to buildings that resulted in third-party property damage or personal injury. Pella sued Liberty Mutual for declaratory judgment and filed a motion for partial summary judgment to determine how many occurrences the underlying cases presented. Pella sought a determination that each of the 15 underlying cases presented one "occurrence" as the term was defined in the CGL policies issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argued that only three or four occurrences were presented, relying on common fact patterns. Pella argued that there were separate and distinct causes of different injuries and damage and thus, each underlying case constituted a separate occurrence. Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, highlighted language within the definition of "occurrence," which stated that an "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions." The "substantially the same general harmful conditions" language dictated that the scope of "occurrence" be understood to be broad, such that various instances of damage-causing water intrusion in different times and places constituted "substantially the same general harmful conditions." 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

COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

October 12, 2020 — Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard

November 29, 2021 — Andre Pelland - Construction Executive
One of the latest and most anticipated changes to occur this year relevant to fall protection is the publishing of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.14 2021 revision. Although the effective date isn’t until August 2022, this change is prompting the need for end user to prepare for using and understanding the new terminology performance requirements that will ultimately alter equipment selection criteria. The reason for its relevance is mostly due to its industry dependence and the increasing popularity of these types of devices. This voluntary consensus standard accounts for a vast portion of the fall protection market equipment and has been adopted as the industry standard, even though it is not the legal requirement. To assure a smooth transition, the immediate priority should be to understand the changes and what it means from a usability standpoint. A clear understanding of what changes devices need to comply will allow users to proceed with a comprehensive transition plan. What Are the Most Relevant Changes for the User? Classes The most significant changes are for Class A and B devices used to designate arrest distances and forces and the introduction of the Class 1 and 2 devices. These classes were known as designators for arresting falls at 24 inches and under with higher forces (Class A), and 54 inches and under with lower forces (Class B). Class 1 devices allow anchoring on overhead anchorages only and limitg freefall to no more than two feet. Reprinted courtesy of Andre Pelland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pelland may be contacted at andre.pelland@puresafetygroup.com

Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

April 02, 2019 — Amy L. Pierce & William S. Hale, P.E. - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Blog
Most companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.” In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters). Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Hale may be contacted at william.hale@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

March 27, 2019 — Mary B. Powers and Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
What may be the nation’s largest dam removal project—delayed for years by regulatory and legal disputes of a utility, stakeholders and states over licensing and environmental permits—now may have new momentum after a hard-hitting January federal appeals court ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ABC Chapter President Comments on Miami Condo Collapse

July 11, 2021 — Rachel O'Connell - Construction Executive
Peter Dyga, ABC Florida East Coast Chapter president, has been one of the go-to experts in the aftermath of the shocking collapse of the Champlain Towers South condo building in Surfside, Florida. As of publication, the death toll stands at 46 people and another 94 remain unaccounted for. On July 7, rescue officials announced the search would transition to a recovery operation at midnight on July 8, following the demolition of the remaining building over the July 4 weekend. Dyga sat down with Construction Executive to discuss the critical nature of this tragedy and to review potential next steps. Construction Executive: This incident has become national news. Why do you think the building collapse has garnered so much attention? Peter Dyga: Because of the enormity of the tragedy and because it’s so uncommon for a building to collapse on its own. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel O'Connell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES