Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case
July 25, 2022 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was more limited than some environmental advocates had feared.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case
October 21, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomBoston, Mass. (October 14, 2024) - Boston Managing Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Partner Matthew M. O' Leary recently secured summary judgment on behalf of a civil engineering firm in a serious personal injury matter arising from a trip-and-fall incident in a mall parking lot.
The client was retained to provide site civil engineering design for the parking lot of a local mall. The design included multiple bioretention areas known as rain gardens. In November of 2019, a woman tripped and fell while attempting to cross a rain garden to reach her car. She suffered significant bodily injuries, including a fracture of the cervical spine that resulted in partial paralysis.
The woman and her husband sued the mall's owner for negligence and loss of consortium in June 2021. The owner, in turn, impleaded Lewis Brisbois' client and the lot's builder, asserting third-party claims for contribution, contractual and common law indemnity, and breach of contract. In addition, the builder cross-claimed against Lewis Brisbois' client for contribution and common law indemnity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions
August 12, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswelll, LLCThe Colorado Court of Appeals has decided a case which answers a question long in need of an answer: do banks/lenders have standing to assert construction defect claims when they receive title to a newly-constructed home following a foreclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? The decision was released on August 1, 2013, in the case of Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. Hepworth-Pawlack Geotechnical, Inc., Steve Pawlak, Daniel Hadin, and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd. (Colorado Court of Appeals No. 13CA0519).
The background facts of the case are typical of a Colorado residential construction defect case generally. A developer contracted for an analytical soil engineering report from a geotechnical engineering firm (H-P) which made a foundation recommendation. The developer’s general contractor then retained an engineering firm (SPKE) to provide engineering services, including a foundation design. The general contractor built the foundation in accordance with the H-P and SPKE criteria and plans.
The house was not sold by the developer and went into default on the construction loan. These events resulted in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure to a bank-controlled entity which purchased the house for re-sale. Shortly after receiving the developer’s deed, the bank-related entity discovered defects in the foundation that resulted in a construction defect suit against the two design firms and related individuals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco
June 18, 2019 —
Matt Olhausen - Gravel2GavelOrdinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.”
A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matt Olhausen, PillsburyMr. Olhausen may be contacted at
matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com
OSHA/VOSH Roundup
August 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsIn an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement.
In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty.
The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Be Proactive Now: Commercial Construction Quickly Joining List of Industries Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks
June 15, 2017 —
Jeffrey M. Dennis & Nathan Owens – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPCommercial contractors have long faced their own unique business risks - labor and material shortages, delay claims, bonding issues, and defects in workmanship. But, in today's ever-evolving cyber world, it is imperative that contractors understand they are vulnerable to risks beyond finishing a project on time and on budget. As we are seeing more and more each day, cyber threats impact all businesses, including the construction industry, and the failure to protect against these threats will cost your company millions in damages and reputational harm.
UNDERSTANDING CYBER THREATS
Traditionally, cyber threats are thought of as the theft of employee and customer information over the internet. Given the construction industry is the largest employer in the world, the need to protect this information is obvious. The release or loss of personnel or consumer data could lead to extensive liability under a variety of potential claims, including statutory fines. In addition to securing confidential information, companies have to protect against outside agents accessing control of a company’s security protocols, equipment or encrypting files using malicious software. The recent “WannaCry” attack demonstrates that no business is immune from cyber attacks.
EXAMPLES OF RELATED BREACHES
For those that think these scenarios do not happen, here are two examples of these types of breaches:
* In May 2013, Chinese hackers stole floor plans, server information, and security system designs from an Australian prime contractor. Fearing the risks of compromised physical and network security, the contractor incurred additional costs of $132.6 million in project delays and costs to rework the various components that had been stolen.
* Then, in December 2014, a German governmental office reported that a steel mill suffered massive damage when malware prevented a blast furnace from being properly shut down. Hackers gained access to key technology within the company, which eventually allowed them to control the production line.
THE NEW WORLD OF THE IoT
In addition to these types of “traditional” hacking threats, cybersecurity risks continue to evolve and become more complicated every day. Some of these new threats are driven by the development of a phenomenon known as the Internet of things, or IoT. The IoT is most basically defined as the interconnection of devices with on / off switches to the Internet and each other. Since the IoT is estimated to be 20 billion or more devices within 3 years, and can be combined with malicious software, IoT poses one of the most challenging risks for contractors to protect against.
The technology included in today's commercial buildings clearly opens this avenue of risk. A centralized computer control center, typically employed in new buildings, controls and maintains the systems that are vital to the operation of the building, e.g., power, elevators, HVAC, lighting, and security. What happens if a hacker gains control to one of these systems, let alone all of them? What if a hacker simply utilizes an IoT attack to overwhelm a building’s computer systems? In either scenario, at a minimum, significant disruption would occur. Worse, the health and safety of those within the building could be jeopardized. A hacker may utilize ransomware in combination with an IoT attack to take over control of the building and hold it and possibly the occupants “hostage” until a ransom is paid.
The first significant IoT attack happened in October 2016 when a major web hosting company was attacked through the IoT, causing the host site to crash. The attack did not steal information, it simply caused the site to crash. But, that crash caused world-wide disruption across the Internet.
Hackers used malicious software to access a hundred thousand common household devices — web cameras, fitness trackers, DVR’s, smart TVs and even baby monitors — to flood the hosting company’s servers with incredibly high internet traffic. This attack showed that everyday items can be hacked and controlled by cyber criminals and then used against anyone else.
As we have all seen in recent news, the WannaCry cyber attack impacted businesses across the globe. Days after the attacks, hospitals were still left feeling its impact with continued appointment and planned operation cancellations, and delays in service. We should expect to see these types of attacks increasing in frequency.
PAY ATTENTION OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
Make no mistake about it, the stakes are incredibly high in the realm of cyber security protection. By 2021, the annual worldwide cost attributable to cyber attacks is estimated to reach the trillions of dollars. If any of these potential attacks occur, a contractor faces significant exposure, in many forms, including:
* Monetary. Cybersecurity events result in direct monetary losses in the form of notification costs, data recovery costs, and, of course, legal and public relations fees. States are also starting to impose strict standards on companies which will result in significant regulatory punishment in the cases of cyber breaches, including the added costs associated with agency investigations, regulatory fines and consumer redress funds.
* Reputation. Perhaps more important than the monetary risk, a contractor may incur substantial reputational harm if such a breach or attack is successful. Recent data has shown that small to medium-sized companies that experience a significant cybersecurity breach go out of business within six months of the breach – due to not only high monetary costs, but severe reputational damage.
* Criminal. The recently passed New York cybersecurity regulations place potential criminal penalties on compliance personnel. Other states are likely to follow New York.
As a business leader and commercial builder, the time to act is now. While the purchase of specific cyber insurance is an important part of protecting against the risks of a cyber attack, many cyber policies contain exclusionary language embedded in the policy making coverage potentially illusory. Additional steps can and need to be taken immediately, including an honest discussion of internal cybersecurity protections, examination of risk management strategy, and the training of employees. Failure to take these important steps could result in a disastrous cybersecurity breach and the loss of millions of dollars.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer and Dillion’s Managing Partner and, as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
J. Nathan Owens is the Managing Partner for Newmeyer & Dillion’s Las Vegas office. With more than 10 years in the construction industry as a former contractor himself, Nathan understands the complex issues builders and developers face in all aspects of development and construction. You can reach Nathan at nathan.owens@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit http://www.newmeyeranddillion.com/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion
December 15, 2016 —
William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage.
The insurer could not unambiguously establish, based on the facts of the underlying case, that waste from a shipyard’s sandblasting activities met the requirements of the exclusion.
The court found that the insurer could not meet Louisiana’s three-part test to determine whether the policy’s total pollution exclusion applied. The Doerr test requires an insurer to refer to the allegations in the underlying complaint to prove 1) the insured is a “polluter”, 2) the injury-causing substance is a “pollutant,” and 3) there was a “discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape” of the pollutant.
Total pollution exclusions are extremely prohibitive for policyholders because they eliminate coverage for virtually all pollution incidents, but this decision reinforces that policyholders may still have a path to coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCraig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor discusses the potential problems for a contractor that a “boilerplate contract” could cause: “A recent case revealed the problems a contractor had with permits when the contractor’s estimate contemplated an easy permitting process and compliance, but in actuality it was much, much more difficult.”
Martin cites the case Bell/Heery v. United States, where a contractor discovered that the permit process would be much more time-consuming and expensive than originally planned. When Bell/Heery asked for additional funds to cover the additional costs, the “contracting officer rejected the request, finding that Bell/Heery had assumed the risk of the permitting process and it was liable for any costs associated with the permitting process and construction methods required by the permitting process.”
“Bell/Heery appealed to the Court of Claims,” but lost the battle. The contractor had to absorb $7 million in costs to comply with the required permits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
