Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim
May 06, 2019 —
Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries.
Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Brett G. Moore,
Michael C. Parme,
Lindsey N. Ursua and
Lawrence S. Zucker II
Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com
Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Top Lawyers” in New York by Hudson Valley Magazine
July 15, 2024 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce four New York partners have been included in the 2024 edition of the Hudson Valley Magazine "Top Lawyers in the Hudson Valley in 2024.” This annual guide recognizes over 260 of the region's leading attorneys.
Lisa Shrewsberry, Hillary Raimondi and Jonathan Harwood are noted for their professional skills in the category of Professional Malpractice Non-Medical Defense and Copernicus “Cope” Gaza in the Insurance category.
Insurance:
Professional Malpractice Non Medical Defense:
- Jonathan R. Harwood
- Hillary J. Raimondi
- Lisa L. Shrewsberry
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line
October 11, 2017 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCThe Washington State Court of Appeals recently addressed an excavation contractor’s responsibilities under the Underground Utilities Damage Prevention Act (UUDPA), RCW 19.122. That statute was enacted in 2011 and imposed certain statutory duties on parties involved with projects requiring excavation.
In this case, Titan Earthworks, LLC contracted with the City of Federal Way to perform certain street improvements including installation of a new traffic signal. During the process of excavating for the traffic signal, Titan drilled into an energized underground Puget Sound Energy power line. PSE sought damages from Titan and Titan sued the City of Federal Way.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
bhill@ac-lawyers.com
Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022
December 18, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 16th consecutive year. The 16 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my time as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 12 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 12 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers that were elected along with me, see the
2022 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law.
So without further ado, thank you to all of you who voted for me. I truly appreciate your continued confidence and support of my construction law practice. Your yearly votes always prod me to learn and continually improve to meet your expectations and keep my practice at this high level. I also couldn’t do this without the great support from friends and family (not to mention clients), so my gratitude goes out to these great folks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction
March 28, 2012 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWriting in Construction Law Colorado, Brady Iandiorio revisits the case Continental Western v. Shay Construction. He promises to continue to follow cases dealing with Colorado HB 10-1394.
Recently the Court ruled on two Motions to Reconsider filed by Defendants Milender White and Shay Construction.
Procedurally, the Motions to Reconsider were ruled on by the Honorable William J. Martinez, because the day after the motions were filed the action was reassigned to Judge Martinez. In the short analysis of the Motion to Reconsider, the court leaned on Judge Walker D. Miller’s ruling on the summary judgment and his analysis of the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.
As a quick refresher regarding the grant of summary judgment, Judge Miller agreed with Continental Western’s argument that the asserted claims were excluded under the “damage to property” exclusion. The policy’s exclusions state: “(j) Damage to Property . . . (5) that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” Judge Miller found that both exclusions (j)(5) and (6) applied to both Shay’s allegedly defective work.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program
July 02, 2024 —
Lucas T. Daniels & Benjamin J. Hochberg - ConsensusDocsMost contractors are familiar with the myriad of labor and safety regulations intended to safeguard the health and safety of workers. Many contractors will be equally familiar with the maze of forms and reports, the maintenance of safety personnel, safety walks and talks, and the many other measures intended to prevent and prepare for accidents. Less known among contractors and construction industry leaders is the regulatory framework establishing safety requirements and the ramifications of ignoring safety-related rules. Knowing and understanding the jurisdiction and authority of the agencies monitoring safety compliance on your project is critical to avoiding administrative ordeals and audits that could add days or weeks to your schedule and frustrate your staff.
The Department of Energy’s Worker Safety and Health Program
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (OSH), the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issues and enforces occupational health and safety regulations. OSHA, or a state with approval from OSHA, regulates the occupational health and safety of private sector employees unless another federal agency has and exercises its statutory authority to regulate. Several federal agencies have developed their own safety programs and conduct their own enforcement of those regulations independent of OSHA. For example, projects receiving funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) are subject to additional oversight of their safety programs by this agency. DOE directly manages its own Worker Safety and Health Program (WSHP), codified at 10 C.F.R. § 851, et seq., and will enforce compliance with its WSHP at all DOE sites. A “DOE site” is defined as a DOE-owned or -leased area or location or other area or location that DOE controls, where a contractor performs activities and operations in furtherance of a DOE mission. This broad definition encompasses a wide range of facilities and operations, including those not directly managed by the DOE but still under its control. The contractor at such a site must be aware of the specific requirements and procedures of the DOE under the WSHP and the ramifications of violating these regulations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lucas T. Daniels, Peckar & Abramson, P.C and
Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C
Mr. Daniels may be contacted at ldaniels@pecklaw.com
Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at bhochberg@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection
September 29, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
