OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace
March 08, 2021 —
Joseph P. Paranac Jr. & Robert M. Pettigrew - White and Williams LLPOn January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its existing guidelines concerning coronavirus protection measures for the workplace. Focusing on the implementation of workplace protection programs, OSHA’s updated advisory guidance seeks to reinforce the benefits of implementing workplace policies along with the critical role employees have in combatting workplace spread. These guidelines are “intended to inform employers and workers in most workplace settings outside of healthcare to help them identify risks of being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 at work and to help them determine appropriate control measures to implement.”
OSHA maintains that the implementation of a strong coronavirus protection program is the most effective way to combat virus spread in the workplace. OSHA has identified 16 categories or elements that an effective coronavirus protection program should address, which include appointing a workplace coordinator and conducting a workplace specific hazard assessment. This assessment should begin by identifying risks in the workplace and developing control measures to mitigate them. The guidance stresses that workers are often the most valuable source of information relating to conditions that contribute to the risk of spread.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph P. Paranac Jr., White and Williams LLP and
Robert M. Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Paranac may be contacted at paranacj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at pettigrewr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/02/22) – Flexible Workspaces, Sustainable Infrastructure, & Construction Tech
November 15, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThis week’s round-up dives into digital transformation in the construction industry, renewed interest in flexible workspaces, and how the infrastructure sector can become more resilient and sustainable, both economically and environmentally.
- Digital transformation in the construction industry is top of mind for many firms, but most are still in the beginning and intermediate phases of implementing new digital capabilities. (Ursula Cullen, PBC Today)
- Companies could mitigate climate hazards and build resilience into the life cycle of their infrastructure and capital projects by facilitating a comprehensive approach to understanding risk. (Brodie Boland and Daphne Luchtenberg, McKinsey & Company)
- The use of drones in project planning, as well as the incorporation of other technology, is proposed as an alternative solution to addressing the construction industry’s labor shortage. (Shaun Passley, For Construction Pros)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts
February 24, 2020 —
Nate Budde - Construction ExecutiveAnyone who has worked in the construction industry is familiar with the financial risks involved. With thin margins, cash flow issues and the litany of potential claims and damages that can arise, contractors need to be able to manage that risk properly.
There is the right way of going about it, and there's a wrong way. Unfortunately, the wrong way (which involves using leverage and shifting risk to other parties) is the more prevalent approach. There are different contractual tactics employed by owners and general contractors alike to shift financial risk to other parties.
Why is construction so financially risky?
There are a few different reasons there is so much risk involved. First and foremost, the construction payment chain itself is inherently risky. Owners and lenders release project funds and trust that the money will reach everyone on the job. But that can’t happen unless each link in the payment chain passes payment to the next. That's a lot of trust for an industry that's not particularly known for it.
Another reason is how construction projects begin. Upfront payment is rare in this industry. This leads to floating the initial costs, extending credit and potentially borrowing money to do so. And those who typically bear this burden, lower-tier subs and suppliers, are the least equipped for that level of risk.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nate Budde, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Budde may be contacted at
nate@levelset.com
Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed
November 14, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe trial court's use of a multiplier in awarding fees to the insured was affirmed by the Florida Court of Appeal. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Laguerre, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11794 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018).
Following Hurricane Wilma, the insured made a claim for wind damage to her insurer, Citizens. Citizens investigated the claim and paid $8,400.77. The insured then demanded an appraisal and submitted an appraisal estimate in the amount of $60,256.79. There was no response to the appraisal demand.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest
November 30, 2020 —
David G. Jordan & Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Power & Energy sector faces a multitude of risks that impact output and profitability, requiring sound risk management and robust insurance programs. As of recent, like most industries, there have been significant challenges facing the industry in light of COVID-19. These issues, including decreased product demand as well as supply- side issues, have been well documented. However, other issues continue to impact Power & Energy providers, with significant insurance coverage implications that are worthy of note. Below is a summary of three open cases of interest, where declaratory relief has been sought by energy providers’ insurance carriers, seeking an avoidance of coverage.
1. Fracking Dispute and “Intentional Acts”
In the Texas case of The James River Insurance Co. v. Clearpoint Chemicals LLC et al., No. 4:20-cv-0076 (N.D.Tex), James River Insurance Company (“James River”) is asking a federal district court to declare that it does not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for acts it defines as both intentional and/or malicious acts.
Reprinted courtesy of
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at TCasanova@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive
July 06, 2020 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogACS is proud to announce that in its review of the top 50 national construction law firms, Construction Executive has ranked ACS as the top 23rd national firm, and first among firms with a majority of their attorneys based in Washington.
Now in its 18th year of publication, Construction Executive is the leading trade magazine about the business of construction. In its June 2020 issue, CE published a comprehensive ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ featuring breakouts and analysis accompanied by an article in which leading legal experts discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the construction industry. To determine the 2020 ranking, CE asked hundreds of US law firms with a construction practice to complete a survey. Data collected included: 1) 2019 revenues from the firm’s construction practice; 2) number of attorneys in the firm’s construction practice; 3) percentage of firm’s total revenues derived from its construction practice; 4) number of AEC clients; and 5) the year in which the construction practice was established. The ranking was determined by an algorithm that weighted the aforementioned factors in descending order of importance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion
July 23, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
