A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around
February 15, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief review of recent significant environmental and administrative law rulings and developments. With the change in presidential administrations, the fate of at least some of the newly promulgated rules is uncertain.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore
On January 19, 2021, the Court heard oral argument in BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore. The respondents filed a Greenhous Gas Climate Change lawsuit in state court, alleging that BP, like other energy companies, is liable for significant damage caused by the sale and promotion of petroleum products while knowing that the use of these products and the resulting release of greenhouse gases damages the environment and public property. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in state courts, pleading common law violations as well as trespass and nuisance law violations The energy companies have tried, unsuccessfully to date, to remove these cases to federal court. The petitioners argue that the federal removal statutes allow the federal courts of appeal to review the lower court’s remand, thus opening the possibility that some of the issues presented in these cases can be tried in federal court, presumably a friendlier forum. A decision on this procedural issue should be rendered in a few months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement
May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far?
In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com
The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889
April 08, 2024 — Scott Lewis - Engineering News-Record
The small headline of the Engineering News article shown here belies the gravity of the disaster: the deadliest dam failure in U.S. history. The South Fork Dam in Pennsylvania was a 72-ft-tall, 931-ft long earth and rockfill structure. After a stop-and-start construction process over a dozen years, it was completed in 1853. The dam went through several changes of ownership and was repaired inadequately. Fish screens were installed that obstructed the spillway and caused water to overtop and erode the structure. This mass of water uprooted trees, rocks, houses, rail cars and animals as it thundered down the valley before smashing into a stone railway embankment. Fires ignited by wrecked locomotives burned for three days. The death toll was 2,208.
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Lewis, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lewis may be contacted at lewisw@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage
July 15, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Your commercial general liability (CGL) policy may contain a specified or designated operations endorsement. This does not operate as an exclusion but as a LIMITATION of coverage. The endorsement may provide that bodily injury or property damage ONLY applies to the operations or business described therein. Similarly, there may be a limitation of coverage for designated classifications or codes which has the same effect—limiting coverage to the classifications/codes listed therein. This is an important consideration, and you need to understand and watch out for such limitations of coverage. (These aren’t the only ones, but it’s important to appreciate that limitations of coverage operate to limit the coverage to which the CGL policy applies.)
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with this exact issue under Alabama law (although the same analysis would apply in numerous jurisdictions). In this case, a landscaper (the insured) had a CGL policy with a specified operations endorsement that limited coverage to landscaping operations. The landscaper was hired to install an in-ground trampoline in addition to site and landscaping operations at a house. A person got hurt using the trampoline and the landscaper was sued. The CGL insurer denied coverage outright (and, thus, any duty to defend) because the complaint asserted that the injury occurred from the landscaper’s assembly and installation of the trampoline, which was not a landscaping operation. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the landscaper’s insurance application specified that the landscaper did not perform any recreational or playground equipment erection or construction, and the installation and assembly of a trampoline would constitute recreational or playground equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?
May 16, 2022 — Anazette Ray & Michael Vardaro - Zetlin & De Chiara LLP
In recent weeks, there has been a long list of companies, from all industries spanning from construction/engineering to fashion and hospitality, that have announced that they are completely severing ties with Russia, while a host of others have announced a temporary halt. See Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, Over 400 Companies Have Withdrawn from Russia – But Some Remain, Yale School of Management (Updated Mar. 21, 2022), https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-400-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain?utm_campaign=mb. For those developers, EPC contractors, and design professionals (engineers and architects) who have construction projects in Russia, the question is, “How should we proceed?”
The U.S. initially stated that it was not issuing a total embargo on business dealings and trade relations with Russia in response to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the U.S., along with many other Western nations, issued targeted sanctions. See Francesco Giumelli, Understanding Targeted U.N. Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis, International Affairs, 91(6), 1351-1368 (explaining the difference between embargoes and targeted sanctions). However, after evidence of war crimes by Russia emerged, President Biden issued an Executive Order prohibiting U.S. individuals, whether in the states or abroad, from new investments in Russia and prohibiting U.S. individuals from transactions with Russian state-owned entities. See April 6, 2022, Presidential Actions, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/04/06/prohibiting-new-investment-in-and-certain-services-to-the-russian-federation-in-response-to-continued-russian-federation-aggression/. This new Executive Order is said to not affect existing contracts in Russia, but instead prohibits new ones.
Reprinted courtesy of Anazette Ray, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP and Michael Vardaro, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP
Ms. Ray may be contacted at aray@zdlaw.com
Mr. Vardaro may be contacted at mvardaro@zdlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information
August 02, 2017 — Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans, & Howard M. Garfield - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (Salisbury) (No. G054078, filed June 28, 2017; pub. and mod. order July 28, 2017), the Fourth Appellate District granted a writ of mandate vacating a trial court’s order disqualifying defendants’ counsel.
In Beachcomber, plaintiffs filed a shareholder derivative action against defendants Beachcomber Management and Douglas Cavanaugh (collectively, “defendants”) alleging defendants abused their position and mismanaged nominal defendant and similarly named Beachcomber at Crystal Cove (“Beachcomber”). Between 2009 and 2011, defendants and Beachcomber had each hired Kohut & Kohut LLP (“Kohut”) to represent them on at least four different occasions. In the underlying action, defendants hired Kohut again to represent them, while Beachcomber hired another law firm to represent it.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans and Howard M. Garfield Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
When Every Drop Matters, Cities Turn to Watertech
November 25, 2024 — James B. Bobotek - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
We all need water to survive—but access to the liquid lifeline isn’t always a given. With a shifting climate and ever-increasing agricultural and industrial demands on this limited commodity, UNICEF predicts that by 2025, half of the world’s population could be living in areas facing water scarcity. On top of the obvious resource drains, many countries are losing surprising amounts of potable water to leaks. For example, in the United States alone, an estimated 6 billion gallons of treated drinking water seep out of its supply every day due to aging pipelines and undetected leaks.
“Smart” water innovations may offer conservation solutions, though. As part of an overall smart city scheme, where internet of things (IoT) devices work hand-in-hand with AI to improve daily life, many municipalities are giving their water systems a makeover. From new meters to irrigation and pipeline maintenance, we look at some of the key intelligent technologies that endeavor to improve how we harness our water supply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James B. Bobotek, Pillsbury
Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com
Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment
April 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014).
The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew.
CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
