California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now
October 18, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers.
Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located.
Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins
September 01, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMake the following inquiry of your constructional lawyer, watch him/her sit up in his/her chair and give your question immediate attention: “I haven’t been paid, can I walk off the job?” The answer to this question is a strong “maybe, but it’s risky.” Walking off the project has a significant downside. The risk is that the judge who reviews your decision, sometimes years after the event, may not agree that the non-payment was a material breach and, thus, suspension of performance (walking off) is not justified.
A breach of contract occurs where, without legal justification, a party fails to perform any promise that forms a whole or part of the contract. Not all breaches are equal. Some failures to perform a promise are “nominal,” “trifling” or “technical.” These breaches do not excuse performance under the contract by the non-breaching party. If the breach is “material,” that is, goes to the essential purpose of the agreement, is a question that only a judge decides, and only after the decision was made as to whether to walk off the job or not. Therefore, before deciding whether to walk off the job, you have to second guess what a judge may decide under the circumstances. Since not all judges see things the same way, the decision is fraught with uncertainty and risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High
September 24, 2014 —
Jeanna Smialek – BloombergNew-home sales in the U.S. surged in August to the highest level in more than six years, a sign that the housing recovery is making progress.
Purchases of new houses jumped 18 percent to a 504,000 annualized pace, the strongest since May 2008 and surpassing the highest forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The one-month increase was the biggest since January 1992.
The housing market is improving in fits and starts this year amid slow wage growth and tight credit conditions. Sustained improvement in the job market will be needed to push up pay and sustain a stronger recovery.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeanna Smialek, BloombergMs. Smialek may be contacted at
jsmialek1@bloomberg.net
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship
April 05, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship.
Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys.
Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar
October 08, 2014 —
Robert Caplan – White and Williams LLPIf you have been following our coverage of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Domtar Paper Co., you will recall that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided on May 29, 2014 to hear the subrogated insurer’s appeal,1 despite the Superior Court’s holding against the subrogated insurer—based primarily on its own defective case law2 —and its denial of reargument, presumably due to the insurer’s briefing follies.3
The parties in Domtar, as well as numerous amici curiae (friends of the court),4 have submitted their respective briefs over the last few months, and the Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument to take place on October 8, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pa. The Court has framed the issue as: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”5
There are three possible outcomes in Domtar.
The first (and easiest) possible outcome for the Supreme Court would be to punt to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for a decision on the issue. Workers’ compensation legislation, perhaps more than any other type of legislation, “creates a highly structured balancing of competing interests.”6 It is basic civics that the legislature has a “superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns.”7
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)
January 17, 2013 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMy husband always finds it amusing when I talk about going “to depose” somebody. He wants to know just exactly what sort of coup d’etat I am planning. Despite the awkward language, the deposition process is not supposed to feel like water boarding, although if you don’t know what to expect it can be more miserable than truly necessary.
Simply put, a deposition is a chance for the other side’s lawyer to make you answer a whole bunch of questions (some relevant, some seemingly irrelevant) under oath. That is, first you put your hand on the Bible and swear (or affirm) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In reality, depositions serve a variety of purposes– they educate the lawyers about the facts of the case, they give a preview of how you would “present” to a jury (i.e., would a jury like and believe you?), and they can be used to position a case for certain later dispositive motions (that is, summary judgment– stay tuned for Part 8 of the series on that issue).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey BrumbackMs. Brumback can be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument
February 08, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Peter A. Dubrawski, Arezoo Jamshidi & Catherine M. Asuncion - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the award did not properly apportion non-economic damages among everyone at fault in violation of Proposition 51; and (2) the amount of the award appeared to have been influenced by plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct and prejudicial remarks during closing argument.
In Plascencia, the plaintiffs sued several defendants for the wrongful death of their daughter arising from a highway fatality accident. All the defendants settled or were dismissed before trial except the trucking defendants. The highway fatality was caused when one defendant driver made an illegal U-turn on a highway as she left another defendant’s fruit stand. The plaintiffs’ daughter swerved to avoid the U-turn driver, lost control of her car, and crashed into the back of the trucking defendants’ diesel tractor-trailer. The truck driver had parked the truck on the side of the highway near the fruit stand, which the trucking defendants’ expert conceded fell below the standard of care.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Peter A. Dubrawski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars
July 20, 2020 —
T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & BonesteelCongratulations to attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty who were selected to the Super Lawyers 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Reprinted courtesy of
T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
