What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry
July 05, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThis past Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that California would reopen after being in lockdown for over a year due to COVID-19. Gone is Governor’s Stay at Home Executive Order. Gone is California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. And gone is the state’s somewhat confusing four-tier, yellow (minimal), orange (moderate), red (substantial) and purple (widespread), risk-level mapping system.
So what does this mean for the construction industry?
Well it’s not quite business back to usual. CalOSHA’s Standards Board voted this past Thursday to pass revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“Revised Standards”). That same day, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-21 implementing the Revised Standards immediately while they are being reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule
May 03, 2017 —
Nathan Owens & Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGetting a notification from OSHA that your company is being investigated for a health or safety violation is an unwanted disruption to your business that could lead to a hefty monetary fine. Worse yet, if your company is found to have committed multiple violations, OSHA may categorize your company as a severe violator, which makes you subject to follow-up inspections. In the last 6 years, OSHA has added 520 companies to the Severe Violator Enforcement Program - sixty percent of which are in the construction industry.
New OSHA regulations impacting the construction industry may result in more companies facing investigations and fines, or worse yet, laying off workers and unable to compete for new work. In 2013, OSHA proposed a new mandate to reduce silicosis in workers. The mandate, which was revised multiple times before being made final in March 2016, requires that employers ensure their workers are exposed to no more than 50 micrograms of crystalline silica in an eight hour period (down from the current standard of 250 micrograms). Under the new mandate, employers are also held to heightened reporting requirements, protective measures and medical testing for employees with extended exposure to silica.
In the construction industry alone, OSHA believes the new mandate will prevent 1,080 cases of silicosis and more than 560 deaths. Builder and trade groups believe the new mandate will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost the building industry billions of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the Silica Rule will cost homebuilders $1,500 per start. While the two sides mount their arguments and seek support, how to implement the rule and its long term feasibility are still contested questions.
Recognizing the challenges employers will have with the heightened requirements of the Silica Rule, OSHA just announced that enforcement is being delayed 90 days to develop additional guidance for implementation of the rule in the construction industry. The new start date for enforcement of the Silica Rule is September 23, 2017.*
Many in the industry are hoping the Trump administration repeals the Silica Rule like they have “blacklisting” and the Volks rule. However, until that happens, OSHA expects your company to implement processes to ensure compliance by the new start date.
*The Silica Rule was adopted by Cal/OSHA in August 2016 even though Cal/OSHA’s own silica standard had been in place since 2008. Cal/OSHA adopted the federal standard with the June 23, 2017 effective date; however; in an effort to synchronize with OSHA, Cal/OSHA recently announced that the effective date in California will also be September 23, 2017.
Nathan Owens is the Las Vegas Managing Partner of Newmeyer & Dillion, and represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. For questions related to the OSHA and the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Nathan.Owens@ndlf.com.
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer is an associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office. Dutch’s practice concentrates on the areas of business litigation, labor and employment law, and construction litigation. For questions related to OSHA or the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Dutch.Schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Contractors Can Do to Address Rising Material Costs
August 23, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFrom lumber to used cars to pastrami sandwiches, prices are rising. This past month, at a town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Biden acknowledged that inflation was increasing, responding to a question from a restaurant owner about labor shortages, “I think your business and the tourist business is really going to be in a bind for a little while.”
Although construction companies typically don’t work in the same small margins that restaurants do, labor shortages and material price increases have nevertheless impacted the construction industry. According to a recent report by Cumming, the cost of construction materials from lumber to steel to gypsum have gone up over the last 12 months, in some cases nearly double:
For contractors entering into construction contracts and those performing work under existing contracts, the increasing cost of materials and shortage of labor creates challenges, some of which can be addressed through contractual provisions and the framework of those contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal
August 30, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf your construction company is bonded, then you have signed a General Agreement of Indemnity with your surety / bonding company. Stated another way, if a surety issued an obligee on behalf of your construction company, as the bond-principal, a payment or performance bond, then you have signed a General Agreement of Indemnity with your surety.
The General Agreement of Indemnity is NOT to be taken lightly. Without the General Agreement of Indemnity, the surety is NOT issuing the bonds you need to work on a certain project. A bond is not insurance and sureties do not issue the bonds under a risk-free premise. Oh no! If a surety has to pay-out claims under a bond, the surety will be looking to recoup that loss from the indemnitors that executed the General Agreement of Indemnity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan
April 26, 2021 —
Gernot Wagner - Bloomberg“Once you put capital money to work, jobs are created.”
These are not the words of President Joe Biden, announcing his administration’s infrastructure plan in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. Nor were they the words of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, standing on a train platform to announce expanded service, or of any of the administration’s economists charged with touting the virtues of the $2.25 trillion spending plan.
It was Michael Morris, then-CEO of Ohio utility American Electric Power, who uttered them on an investor call a decade ago. AEP was fighting an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reduce mercury and other pollutants from power plants, citing the expense of creating jobs to install new scrubbers on smokestacks or build cleaner plants. Morris, taking his fiduciary responsibility to the utility’s investors seriously, argued these new roles would come at a cost to AEP and were, thus, bad. What he did not question, and correctly so, was whether more investments would indeed create more jobs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gernot Wagner, Bloomberg
Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute
August 14, 2018 —
David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWhen a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFBusinessweek reports that construction jobs and materials will see increased demand as property owners in New York and New Jersey rebuild after hurricane Sandy. Tom Jeffery, of Irvine, California-based CoreLogic, a real estate information service, noted that “a high percent of damaged properties are going to be repaired.” Experts estimate property damage to total anywhere from $7 billion to $40 billion.
It is also estimated that about 739,000 properties in the area are underwater in the way that has nothing to do with flooding, with negative equity of 25 percent or more. Many of these homeowners are likely to walk away from their mortgages.
Ken Simonson, chief economist of the Associated General Contractors of America, expects “localized spikes in construction employment throughout November and the winter.” Martin Connor, the chief financial officer of Toll Brothers, expects to see more a rise in labor costs than in materials.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation
November 12, 2019 —
Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction LitigationThe Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019).
In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Ingham may be contacted at
ingham@hhmrlaw.com
