New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
May 08, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe White House has released the text of the President’s new Executive Order strengthening the Federal Government’s commitment to taking new actions to enhance and promote environmental justice. The Order was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2023 at 88 FR 25251. President Clinton’s pioneering 1994 Executive Order remains effective, but the Federal Government must, as part of a whole-of-government approach to environmental justice, “build upon and strengthen its commitment to deliver environmental justice to all communities across America.”
Unlike that Order, this Order defines “environmental justice.” For purposes of this new Order, “environmental justice” takes into account all adverse human health and environmental effects and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systematic barriers, and ensures equitable access to a healthy, sustainable and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, worship and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.
“Federal activity” is now broadly defined as “any agency rulemaking, guidance, policy, program, practice or action that affects or has the potential to affect human health and the environment, including any agency action related to climate change.” This Order references the seven previous Executive Orders devoted to climate change, clean energy and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision
October 27, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogSorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title.
The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule.
The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment.
In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season
January 13, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are a number of horizontal construction projects where a contractor’s sequence of work and schedule is predicated on avoiding the rainy season (or certain force majeure events). The reason is that the rainy season will result in delays due to the inability to work (and work efficiently) during the adverse weather (including flooding caused by the weather). If the work is pushed into the rainy season, is such delay compensable if the government (or owner) delayed the project that pushed work out into the rainy season? It very well can be.
For example, in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 2019 WL 4594233 (Fed. Cl. 2019), a contractor was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a flood control project for a channel in Arizona. Due to delays, including those caused by the government, the project was pushed into the monsoon season, which caused additional delays largely due to flooding caused by the heavy rain. One issue was whether such delays were compensable to the contractor – the government raised the argument that the contractor assumed the risk of potential flooding from the rainy season. The Court found this argument unconvincing:
[The contractor’s] initial construction schedule planned for a completion of the channel invert work, a necessary step in protecting the site from flooding, to be completed by late June 2008…[M]any issues arose in the project’s early stages that led to cumulative substantial delay, including those caused by the government’s failure….The government cannot now claim that [the contractor] assumed the risk of flooding from monsoon season when the government was largely responsible for [the contractor’s] inability to complete the project prior to the beginning of the monsoon season. Simply put, the government cannot escape liability for flood damages when the government is responsible for causing the contractor to be working during the flood-prone season.
Meridian Engineering, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.
The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”
Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”
Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”
The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”
The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.
The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment
October 28, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dispose of the insured's claim for collapse was denied. Life Skills, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143658 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2024).
Life Skills was a non-profit social service agency providing residential and day habilitation services to adults with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. The head office was covered by a policy issued by Harleysville with building coverage limits of $3,038,300.
Damage occurred in a ceramics classroom located in the basement of the building. The floor sank between eight to twelve inches in the northeast corner. The ceramics classroom contained two large kilns weighing approximately 200 pounds.
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
Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement
December 21, 2020 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIf you are a member of the California construction industry you might know that the right of a contractor, subcontractor or supplier to record a mechanics lien to protect the right to payment is well protected by state law. In fact, our California Constitution, article XIV, Sec. 3 specifically elevates the right to a mechanics lien to “Constitutional right”. The right to a mechanics lien is further protected by a statutory framework, including Civil Code sec. 8122 which states:
“An owner, direct contractor, or subcontractor may not, by contract or otherwise, waive, affect, or impair any other claimant’s rights under this part, whether with or without notice, and any term of a contract that purports to do so is void and unenforceable unless and until the claimant executes and delivers a waiver and release under this article.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements
October 16, 2018 —
John Krawczyk - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCDesign-build contracting is a method of project delivery where the contractor provides both architectural/design and building services to the owner. Yet rarely do firms perform both design and building work in equal measure. Rather, in many instances, firms perform the vast majority of their work on the building side while advertising and providing design services for smaller projects using in-house architects.
Regardless of the volume of design-build contracting a firm performs, any firms practicing this method of project delivery must be aware of Washington State’s registration requirement under RCW 18.08.420(1), and specifically the condition that a “designated architect” must serve as a partner, manager or director of the firm’s governing structure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Krawczyk, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Krawczyk may be contacted at
john.krawczyk@acslawyers.com
CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself
May 12, 2016 —
Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not.
Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence.
Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.”
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
