COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

December 21, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLC
The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has been asked to review OSHA’s twenty year old “controlling employer” policy. As many contractors are surprised to learn, under OSHA’s controlling employer policy, you can be given an OSHA citation even when your own employee is not exposed to the alleged hazard. A. The Controlling Employer Policy OSHA’s current controlling employer policy has been effective since 1999. That policy applies to multi-employer worksites, which means virtually all construction sites. Under the policy, OSHA can cite the creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. A creating employer is one who creates the hazard to which workers are exposed. The exposing employer is one who permits his employees to be exposed to the hazard, whether it created the hazard or not. The correcting employer is one who is responsible with correcting known hazards. Finally, the controlling employer is one “who has general supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct safety and health violations itself or require others to correct them.” Most general contractors and CM’s are controlling employers. Under OSHA’s policy, a contractor’s OSHA safety obligations hinges on whether it is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. The creating, exposing, and correcting contractors obligations are fairly straightforward. However, the controlling contractors obligations are more nuisanced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

October 26, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are instances where the owner of a construction project terminates its general contractor prior to the completion of the project. There are instances where the owner suspends the work prior to the completion of the project, meaning there is a cessation in the construction. And, there are instances where the project is simply abandoned. I have been involved in all instances, and the owner’s reasons vary…from an owner claiming a termination for default, termination for convenience, or a suspension or abandonment due to the market or financial factors. Regardless of the owner’s reasoning, at some point—hopefully—the owner will want to resume or, more properly stated, recommence construction and complete the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

April 19, 2021 — Amy Pierce, Mark Oertel & John Lubitz - Lewis Brisbois
As of July 1, 2020, “[e]very person who is an officer, member, responsible manager, or director of a corporation or limited liability company seeking licensure under this chapter shall be listed on the application as a member of the personnel of record,” and they must match those officers listed on California Secretary of State’s (SOS) records. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7065 (b)(1)). This is a deviation from the Contractors State License Board’s (CSLB) past practice of requiring foreign corporations to associate as personnel of record only their president, in contrast to requiring domestic corporations to associate their president, secretary, and treasurer. Beware that the CSLB may discover that the licensee’s personnel of record are incomplete or incorrect when reviewing a license renewal application, because it will compare the SOS’s records to the license renewal application. A license renewal application requires the licensee to list its qualifier and personnel of record. If the SOS and CSLB records do not match, this could delay approval of the license renewal application until the missing personnel are added and fingerprinted. Reprinted courtesy of Amy Pierce, Lewis Brisbois, Mark Oertel, Lewis Brisbois and John Lubitz, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

September 10, 2014 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract. In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Recently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification. I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger. Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

August 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is an affirmative claim known as promissory estoppel. (Whereas equitable estoppel is used an affirmative defense, promissory estoppel is used as an affirmative claim.) To prove promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following three elements: “(1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) a reasonable reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel caused by the representation and reliance thereon.” Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So.2d 643, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated differently: “A party will be estopped from denying liability under the principle of promissory estoppel when the party makes ‘[a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance…[and] injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.’” Criterion Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering & Drywall, 582 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

June 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Considering certified questions from the federal district court, the Arkansas Supreme Court followed a prior decision in deciding there was no coverage for property loss caused by faulty workmanship based solely on breach of contract. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgt. Services, Inc., 2016 Ark. LEXIS 185 (Ark. April 28, 2016). The homeowners entered a contract in 2005 with Arkansas Infrastructure, Inc. (AII) to construct pads for the construction of six homes. The contract provided that AII would perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings developed by CENARK Project Management Services, Inc. In 2012, the homeowners sued AII for breach of contract, alleging that AII had failed to construct the pads in accordance with the plans and specifications designed by CENARK. 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

---

The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

March 30, 2016 — John Van Vlear and Karl Foster – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Six months ago, a couple anxiously relayed to N&D lawyers how the sky was falling – with environmental liabilities at the center of their seemingly real Chicken Little fears. The couple owned two properties in a central California town, one being a former gas station which an oil company had abandoned alleging the lease was void given partial eminent domain actions. Before interviewing us, the couple had spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees with another law firm trying to force the oil company to take responsibility for potential environmental impacts under the disputed lease. Reprinted courtesy of John Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP and Karl Foster, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com. Mr. Foster may be contacted at karl.foster@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---