Ornate glass roof

Attorneys Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory in a case re SB800 roof standards.

California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Scott Calkins & Anthony Gaeta - Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli; Mark Chapman - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli partners Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory when the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict against one plaintiff homeowner, and awarded the other homeowner less than $2,000, an amount well below the defendant’s pre-trial CCP 998 Offers to Compromise. One of the main issues in the case was the application of SB800 roofing standards. Plaintiffs’ roofing expert testified in deposition no water entered the structure or passed through a moisture barrier [Civ. Code §896(a)(4)], and no materials had fallen off the roof [§896(g)(11)]. In an attempt to circumvent the applicable performance standards, Plaintiffs argued Civ. Code §869(g)(3)(A), also known as the ‘useful life’ exception, applied because the various components of the roof (nailing pattern, tiles, vents, etc.) were installed in such a manner so as to reduce the useful life of the roof. Following pre-trial motions and objections made during Plaintiffs’ direct examination, the Court ruled Section 896(g)(3)(A) did not apply to a conventional roof, as it is not a “manufactured product” as defined in §896(g)(3)(C). Plaintiffs’ roofing claims were summarily dismissed and Plaintiffs’ expert was prevented from testifying.

In contrast, the defense expert, Mark Chapman, was allowed to testify regarding his expert opinions as to the appropriate SB800 standard relative to each alleged defect and whether the standards were violated. The SB800 performance standards were included on the jury verdict form, and the jury found Mr. Chapman’s testimony compelling, which was a substantial factor in awarding only minor damages to one Plaintiff.

For more information, contact Scott Calkins (scalkins@cslawoffices.com), Anthony Gaeta (ageta@cslawoffices.com) or Mark Chapman (mchapman@berthowe.com).

Admit one golden ticket

General contractors should be cognizant of both their and their subcontractors’ license renewal obligations and deadlines.

California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Amy L. Pierce, Mark A. Oertel & John Lubitz - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

Under California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., all contractors’ and subcontractors’ licenses expire two years from the last day of the month in which the license issued, or two years from the date on which the renewed license last expired. The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) sends licensees a renewal application 60 to 90 days prior to the date the license is set to expire.

Most contractors have various controls in place to make sure that the renewal application is timely filed and the required fee paid. Even so, we are only human and mistakes are made, and a renewal application filing deadline can be missed for a variety of reasons, e.g., the licensee’s mailing address has not been updated on the CSLB’s records, the individual responsible for filing the license renewal is out on leave, there has been a death in the family or a serious health issue, etc. Quoting Robert Burns, even “[t]he best-laid schemes of mice and men go oft awry” (To a Mouse, 1786).

General contractors should be cognizant of both their and their subcontractors’ license renewal obligations and deadlines.

If a licensee missed timely filing its renewal application, Business & Professions Code Section 7141.5may provide some relief. Section 7141.5 provides that the Registrar of Contractors,

“may grant the retroactive renewal of a license if the licensee requests the retroactive renewal in a petition to the registrar, files an application for renewal on a form prescribed by the registrar, and pays the appropriate renewal fee and delinquency fee prescribed by this chapter. This section shall only apply for a period not to exceed 90 days from the due date and only upon a showing by the contractor that the failure to renew was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.”

Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP attorneys Amy Pierce, Mark Oertel and John Lubitz
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com

Read the full story…
Blue check mark

A checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.

AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLP

Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.

California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.

Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.

  1. The subcontract is in writing;
  2. The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
  3. If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
  4. The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
  5. The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
  6. The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
  7. The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply.

You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney.

Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears

Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com


Classification is the Bedrock to a Digital Built Environment

February 18, 2020 — Andy Hamer - AEC Business

It seems we all agree the digitisation of construction and real estate is an imperative for buildings to be designed, constructed and operated more cost-effectively and deliver the changing needs of the building’s occupants.

There is much discussion about the benefits of AI, MI, Digital Twins and not forgetting BIM to support the digital transformation of the built environment. Yet I’m unconvinced these technologies will deliver their promised benefit without the whole supply chain addressing the underlying fundamental need to deliver structured data, and I repeat the need for structured data.


Cyber Breach Claim Survives Insurer's Motion to Dismiss

February 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

AIG's Motion to Dismiss the insured's claim based upon a fraudulent transfer of funds was largely denied by the court. SS&C Tech. Holdings v. AIG Spec. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194196 (S.D. N. Y. Nov. 6, 2019).

SS&C was a global provider of software and software-enabled services. In March 2016, unknown third parties using stolen credentials sent transfer requests via e-mail to SS&C, falsely claiming to be acting on behalf of Tillage Commodities Fund, L.P. Over the court of three weeks, SS&C transferred over $5.9 million from Tillage's accounts to certain bank accounts in Hong Kong, as requested by the fraudsters.

Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


Federal Judge Temporarily Enjoins California From Enforcing AB 51

February 18, 2020 — Jeffrey K. Brown & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears

This morning, a federal judge from the Eastern District of California granted a temporary restraining order preventing California from enforcing Assembly Bill (AB) 51.

AB 51-which was set to take effect on January 1, 2020-prohibits employers from requiring, as a condition of employment, employees to waive their right to any forum or procedure to bring claims under the Labor Code or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Several industry groups filed a complaint, alleging that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey K. Brown, Payne and Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne and Fears
Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com
Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com


Act Naturally: Ethics in Construction Contract and Witness Preparation - "Meet to Empower" Series

February 18, 2020 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff

The American Bar Association (ABA) presents a seminar that “will explore various ethical issues that construction attorneys face when negotiating contracts and representing their clients in contract negotiations.” For instance, the program will discuss whether it is okay to lie in negotiations, and how far attorneys can go to protect their client’s business interests.

March 12th, 2020
Kimpton Hotel Monaco Denver
1717 Champa St
Denver, CO 80202-2704

Featured Experts For More Visit Us At:

Consulting Civil Engineer and General Contracting Expert Witness Arrange No Charge Initial Consultation Concerning Your Matter. area area

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Businessmembers standing behind computer monitor

In most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter - Construction Executive

There may be tension between the enforcement of statutory mechanic’s lien claims when a contractual dispute resolution provision calls for arbitration. Once the parties are in arbitration, it may not be clear whether the arbitrator has authority to make factual determinations regarding amount and validity of mechanic’s liens, and whether courts are bound by these determinations. This uncertainty stems from the fact that in most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, many mechanic’s liens statutes define foreclosure as a “judicial process,” and courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to issue orders foreclosing on real property1.

The risk for contractors and owners is that they will spend time and money re-litigating factual issues related to proving elements of a mechanic’s lien claim, including the proper lien amount, timeliness and other prerequisites. Without a clear understanding of what issues and elements are arbitrable, the parties run the risk that an arbitrator will rule on certain elements only to find out during post-arbitration lien foreclosure proceedings that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations on those elements. Questions therefore arise whether a court will enforce the arbitrator’s determinations and whether the parties must relitigate mechanic’s lien issues creating a further risk of inconsistent rulings.

These risks can be minimized through arbitration provisions which address these issues, express requests in arbitration demands and by ensuring that arbitration awards contain explicit determinations of mechanic’s liens issues.

Reprinted courtesy of Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

Mr. Potter may be contacted at tpotter@coxcastle.com
Mr. Campbell may be contacted at rcampbell@coxcastle.com

Read the full story…
Construction worker on crane

Attorney Tred R. Eyerly discusses East 111 Assoc. LLC v. RLI Ins. Co.

Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The insured Developer survived a motion to dismiss by one of several carriers who were asked to defend against claims for faulty workmanship. East 111 Assoc. LLC v. RLI Ins. Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5331 (Oct. 4, 2019).

Developers sponsored a residential condominium project and sold all units. The owners subsequently sought damages for $881,450 for alleged design and construction defects, and asserting causes of action for, among other things, breach of contract, specific performance and negligence. The underlying action settled for $350,000. Developers sought coverage from its insurers.

The Developers sued the carriers for a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to a defense. Developers had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Developers were also additional insureds in policies issued to subcontractors by James River, Admiral and Selective. The insurers moved to dismiss.

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the full story…
Time word by hourglass

The Only Thing Progressing Slower Than Latent Injury Claims are Latent Injury Coverage Rules

Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner.

In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977.

Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage.

Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Read the full story…
Urban skyline with earth brown to green signalling climate change

If significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will reduce the U.S. economy by as much as 10 percent by the end of the century.

A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Sheila McCafferty Harvey - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

Issued by 13 federal agencies, the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment presented a stark warning on the consequences of climate change for the United States. The report predicts that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will reduce the U.S. economy by as much as 10 percent by the end of the century. The report, which was mandated by Congress and made public by the White House, is notable not only for the precision of its calculations and bluntness of its conclusions—the 1,656-page assessment lays out the devastating effects of a changing climate on the economy—but also in how it conflicts with President Donald Trump’s environmental deregulation plan. U.S. policy efforts at the state and local levels are ramping up to address this complex topic. These include:

Targeting Net-Zero Emissions. Hailed as the most aggressive climate law in the nation, New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act are targeting 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040 and economy-wide, net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. California set a statewide target to reach carbon neutrality by 2045.

Reducing and Renewing. New Mexico established a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Nevada passed a bill to increase the amount of electricity it gets from renewable resources to 50 percent by 2030.

Reprinted courtesy of Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury

Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com

Read the full story…
Red pencil on Insurance coverage document

The 4th Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s CGL policy with a wrap-up exclusion.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.

The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit.

The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit.

Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion.

Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.

Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

Read the full story…
Choice on dartboard with dart through O

Of the many damages Plaintiffs may claim, one of the most prevalent and recognizable is property damage.

Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Potential damages in a lawsuit may come in many forms depending on the facts of the case. Common damages include medical expenses, loss of earnings, property loss, physical pain, and mental suffering. Of the many damages Plaintiffs may claim, one of the most prevalent and recognizable is property damage. This article briefly discusses these types of damages which fall under two major categories – Real Property and Personal Property.

Broadly speaking, “real property” means land, and “personal property” refers to all other objects or rights that may be owned. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “real property” as: “Such things as are permanent, fixed, and immovable; lands, tenements, and hereditaments of all kinds, which are not annexed to the person or cannot be moved from the place in which they subsist. . . .” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3d ed. 2010).) “Personal property” is defined as: “Money, goods, and movable chattels . . . . All objects and rights which are capable of ownership except freehold estates in land, and incorporeal hereditaments issuing thereout, or exercisable within the same.” (Id. (emphasis added).)

Real Property

Real property may be damaged or “harmed” through trespass, permanent nuisance, or other tortious conduct. The general rule is that Plaintiffs may recover the lesser of the two following losses: (1) the decrease in the real property’s fair market value; or (2) the cost to repair the damage and restore the real property to its pre-trespass condition plus the value of any lost use. (Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.) However, an exception to this general rule may be made if a Plaintiff has a personal reason to restore the real property to its former condition, sometimes called the “personal reason” exception. In such cases, a Plaintiff may recover the restoration costs even if the costs are greater than the decrease in the real property’s value, though the restoration cost must still be “reasonable” in light of the value of the real property before the injury and the actual damage sustained.

Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Read the full story…

Code Enforcement Cracks Down on Irma Damaged Homes Lee County

Two businessmen meeting in urban environment

Formal actions must be taken by a corporation or LLC to maintain the benefits associated with that business entity.

Corporate Formalities: A Necessary Part of Business

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law Group

Many benefits exist in choosing to create a corporation or limited liability company (“LLC”) as your business entity. However, what attracts most people to these entities is the protection they afford the business owner(s) against personal liability for the business’ obligations, debts, and other liabilities. Whatever reason prompts your decision to form a corporation or LLC, if you are like many smaller businesses, once the formation process is over its back to business as usual.

However, in order to keep the protection against personal liability associated with a corporation or LLC, the business must engage in, what are known as corporate formalities. Corporate formalities are formal actions that must be taken by a corporation or LLC in order to maintain the benefits associated with that business entity. These corporate formalities may be required under California law, by the bylaws, and/or by the operating agreement of your business.

When your business is formed as a corporation, many of the corporate formalities exist as part of California’s Corporations Code (“CCC”). These formalities include: (1) holding annual meetings (CCC § 600); (2) regularly electing directors (CCC § 301); (3) keeping meeting minutes (CCC § 1500); and (4) maintaining accurate corporate records (CCC § 1500). While these are only a few of the corporate formalities existing for corporations in the State of California, these formalities are often overlooked or put off by smaller businesses because they are either unknown to the business or are intended to be complied with later, as the actual running of the business takes priority.

Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group

Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

Read the full story…

Post its on cork board

Some of the things that we construction attorneys would think are so obvious are not always as clear as we may think.

Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings

Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion.

In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed.

Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:

In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.

Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill

Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Read the full story…

Two construction workers looking at plans

Attorney Paul Cressman Jr. analyzes the case Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.

General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

On November 21, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.[1]

At the time of the incident in May 2013, Mr. Vargas, the plaintiff, was helping pour the concrete walls for what would become a parking garage for an apartment building. He was employed by Hilltop Concrete Construction. Inland Washington was the general contractor, and subcontracted with Hilltop to pour concrete. Hilltop, in turn, entered into agreements with Ralph’s Concrete Pumping and Miles Sand & Gravel to provide a pump truck, certified pump operator, and supply concrete.

A rubber hose carrying concrete whipped Mr. Vargas in the head. It knocked him unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury.

Vargas, through his guardian ad litem, along with his wife and children, sued Inland Washington, Ralph’s, and Miles.

The trial court initially dismissed on summary judgment Vargas’ claims that Inland Washington was vicariously liable for the acts of Hilltop, Ralph’s, and Miles. Later, the trial court also granted Inland Washington’s motion for summary judgment that it was not directly liable as a matter of law.

Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Mr. Cressman may be contacted at paul.cressman@acslawyers.com

Read the full story…

Rules word on side of notebook

CISC is asking OSHA to exclude mortar mixing, dry wall installation/finishing and other tasks with sub-threshold dust levels.

ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 — Rachel O'Connell - Construction Executive

The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) has responded to OSHA’s request for information regarding changes to the “Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica – Specified Exposure Control Methods Standard,” also known as the silica rule. Specifically, OSHA requested comments in mid-August on potential changes to Table 1, which designates compliance actions for a range of conditions and tasks exposing workers to respirable crystalline silica.

CISC, comprised of 26 members including Associated Builders and Contractors, has formally requested that OSHA expand compliance options. “Expanding Table 1 and otherwise improving compliance with the rule is of paramount importance to member associations and contractors across the country,” CISC tells OSHA Principal Deputy Loren Sweatt. “Based upon feedback from contractors, both large and small, compliance with the rule remains challenging.”

Reprinted courtesy of Rachel O'Connell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

Read the full story…

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.
No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions CONSTRUCTION NEWS constructiondefecteminars.html constructionDefectChannel.html contactCDJ.html