Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606
December 13, 2021 —
Michael J. Studenka - Newmeyer DillionGovernor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill 606, set to take effect on January 1, 2022. With proponents of the bill citing the need to hold large employers accountable for COVID-related workplace hazards, SB 606 creates two new categories of employer violations. First, SB 606 creates a rebuttable presumption that if a type of violation is discovered at one particular worksite, Cal/OSHA can extrapolate that the violation is an “enterprise-wide” violation at all of the other company worksites. Additionally, SB 606 adds a new category of “egregious violations” to Cal/OSHA’s arsenal, adding a penalty multiplier for such violations. Finally, SB 606 increases Cal/OSHA’s investigative capabilities by authorizing Cal/OSHA to issue a subpoena to employers should they fail to “promptly provide” information requested during an investigation. As further explained below, the consequences of violating Cal/OSHA regulations has become significantly greater and more expensive, particularly for larger employers with multiple worksites.
ENTERPRISE-WIDE VIOLATIONS AND THE SEVERE REMEDIES THAT FOLLOW
Under SB 606, employers with more than one worksite will now face a rebuttable presumption that a violation at one location is actually “enterprise-wide” if either of the following are true:
- A written policy or procedure violates any Cal/OSHA standard, rule, order or regulation; OR
- Cal/OSHA finds evidence of a “pattern or practice” of the same violation being committed by the employer at one or more of its worksites.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer DillionMr. Studenka may be contacted at
michael.studenka@ndlf.com
Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend
December 27, 2021 —
Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment.
In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National.
When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Vita may be contacted at
JVita@sdvlaw.com
Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.
In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”
Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.
The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”
The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”
The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period
September 09, 2019 —
Christopher Raney - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim.
The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:
In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.
The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Raney may be contacted at
craney@grsm.com
Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman & David A. Napper - CGDRB News & PublicationsOn February 10, 2017, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that if a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of a homeowner’s Notice of Claim within 14 days, as required by the Right to Repair Act (“SB800”), specifically California Civil Code §913, the homeowner is released from the requirements of SB800 and may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit.
In Blanchette v. Superior Court, Blanchette owned 1 of 28 homes constructed by GHA Enterprises, Inc. (“GHA”). On February 2, 2016, Blanchette served GHA with notice of a claim, setting forth the alleged defects in all 28 homes. On February 23, 2016, GHA responded that the construction defects were not alleged with sufficient “reasonable detail” as required by Civil Code §910. In response, Blanchette asserted that GHA’s response was untimely and thus excused him and the other homeowners from any obligations under SB800. The trial court found for the builder, GHA, holding that Blanchette’s Notice of Claim lacked detail sufficient to trigger GHA’s obligations under SB800. Blanchette appealed the ruling.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower
June 26, 2023 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordAfter overcoming several snags, the team for the voluntary effort to stem future significant settlement and tilting at San Francisco’s 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower has declared the project a success, now that loads have been fully transferred to 18 new perimeter piles driven to bedrock.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations
April 06, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings we have discussed the intersection of contracts, construction and fraud on several occasions. We’ve even discussed how such fraud can bleed over from the civil to the criminal.
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court weighed in again on the question of construction fraud and criminal allegations. In O’Connor v. Tice, the Court discussed a malicious prosecution action brought by a contractor against owners of a commercial building. In O’Connor, the owners and the contractor got into a disagreement over alleged damage to the roof of the owners’ building and who was responsible. In response to this disagreement, the owners contacted the local sheriff’s office, accusing the contractor of construction fraud, and then wrote a “15 day letter” to the contractor outlining the criminal consequences should he fail to pay the damages sought in the owners civil lawsuit. Subsequently, a criminal warrant was issued against the contractor based solely upon the word of the owners. This last occurred at the insistence of the owners (who did not inform the sheriff’s deputy or the Commonwealth Attorney that they’d had this conversation or that the contractor had partially performed) after they discussed the matter with the contractor’s attorney and were informed that any claim that they may have had was civil in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law MusingsMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Housing Affordability Down
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn what Rick Judson, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, describes as a “‘perfect storm’ scenario,” home prices and interest rates are up “at the same time that the cost of building homes is rising due to tightened supplies of building materials, developable lots and labor.” Residential housing is becoming less affordable.
David Crowe, the Chief Economist for the NAHB, attributes this to “higher mortgage rates and the more than year-long steady increase in home prices,” but he notes that “a family earning a median income can afford 65% of homes recently sold.”
For the last four quarters, the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City area in California holds the dubious distinction of being the nation’s least affordable area. There, a family earning the area’s median income of $101,200 (nearly double the national median) could only afford 16% of the homes sold in the area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
