Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Columbus Business First, a report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that “assessed the structural integrity of the Buckeye Lake Dam [located in Ohio] and found serious problems that present significant risks to the public.”
Problems arose, allegedly, from “construction of homes [and] pools and patios that have been built into the earthen embankment.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report stated (according to Columbus Business First) “there was a potential for an eight-foot wave of water, mud and debris that would inundate an area as far as Hebron, more than two miles away.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Ghosts of Baha Mar: How a $3.5 Billion Paradise Went Bust
January 06, 2016 —
John Lippert & Dawn McCarty – BloombergBeyond the tropical waters, across palm-fringed sands and behind locked gates, looms Baha Mar -- the largest and, at $3.5 billion, priciest resort in the Caribbean.
Here, no one frolics pool-side, pina colada in hand, or hits irons on the Jack Nicklaus golf course. No slot machines jingle-jangle in the casino. The Flamingo Bar, the Brasserie des Arts and the Cartier boutique lie dark. On this bright October morning in the Bahamas, all 2,200 guest rooms are empty.
The quiet is almost spooky here on the outskirts of Nassau, where the waterscape frills of nearby Paradise Island give way to the vast ghost-resort that is Baha Mar.
Just how the place ended up like this -- in a bankruptcy so colossal that it’s jeopardizing the Bahamas’s credit rating -- is the biggest business story to hit this Caribbean nation for as long as anyone here can remember. It stretches far beyond the white beaches and across time zones, to none other than the State Council of China.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Lippert, Bloomberg and
Dawn McCarty, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract
May 10, 2022 —
Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs GidenCalifornia local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount.
In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor.
As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:
Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and
Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden
Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022
December 27, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsGov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws.
California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers
On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests.
Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is
December 11, 2023 —
Rachel E. Hudgins & Syed S. Ahmad - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogCourts scrutinize a complaint’s factual allegations to decide whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend.
[1] If the facts unambiguously exclude coverage, there is no duty to defend.
[2] But what if the factual allegations fall within a policy exclusion, but the allegations are untrue or questionable? What if the true facts would mean the exclusion doesn’t apply? In that case, many courts have found that the insurer should base its decision on the policyholder’s version of the “true facts.”
[3] An insurer can’t rely on the complaint’s allegations to deny coverage when the facts that the insurer knows or can ascertain show that the claim is covered.
[4]
A recent case,
United Minerals & Properties Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., No. 4:23-cv-00050 (N.D. Ga.), illustrates these policy interpretation principles.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance
November 23, 2020 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCYesterday, November 15, 2020, Governor Inslee announced modifications to the current COVID-19 restrictions in response to the current rise in cases across Washington State.
There are no additional restrictions on construction at this time. However, during the Governor’s press conference yesterday, he did indicate that positive cases were increasing on construction sites, and that they would be tracking the statistics over the next 2 – 3 weeks – to see if additional restrictions would be necessary for construction sites in the future. Additionally, the construction industry group is meeting with the Governor’s office today, November 16, 2020, and we will keep you informed of any changes as a result of that meeting.
Unless otherwise specifically noted, the modifications take effect at 12:01 a.m., Tuesday, November 17, 2020. All modifications to existing prohibitions set forth herein shall expire at 11:59 p.m., Monday, December 14, 2020, unless otherwise extended. If an activity is not listed below, currently existing guidance shall continue to apply. If current guidance is more restrictive than the below listed restrictions, the most restrictive guidance shall apply. These below modifications do not apply to education (including but not limited to K-12, higher education, trade and vocational schools), childcare, health care, and courts and judicial branch-related proceedings, all of which are exempt from the modifications and shall continue to follow current guidance. Terms used in this proclamation have the same definitions used in the Safe Start Washington Phased Reopening County-by-County Plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency
September 03, 2019 —
Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterIn In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps.
In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLPMs. Vulpio may be contacted at
vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com
Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect
November 04, 2019 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements.
The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes.
With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
- The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
- The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
- A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
- Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
