Posted
by

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals recently held that whether “prompt” notice was given to an insurer of a claim occurring over three and a half years after a hurricane caused damages to a condominium is a question of fact that must be given to the jury. This ruling confirms that the date on which an insureds’ duty to report a claim is triggered under an insurance policy’s notice provision is an issue of fact not ripe for summary judgment. The case is Laquer v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The following important U.S. District Court decisions are being appealed to the Fifth and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals:

  • Louisiana District Court says no go to suit against 88 oil and gas companies. On May 20, 2015, another important environmental appeal was filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18461 (February 13, 2015). In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed a major lawsuit that the Board of Commissioners filed against 88 oil and gas companies operating in South Louisiana for many years. The lawsuit, filed in state court and removed to federal court, alleges that the oil and gas operations of the defendants, in particular the construction and operation of canals located in the jurisdiction of the plaintiff levee boards, caused significant coastal erosion which in turn caused the destruction of thousands of acres of coastal lands.
  • Texas District Court shows Clean Air Act citizen suit the door. In December 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a ruling in Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc., et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., rejecting the Clean Air Act citizen suit claims filed against ExxonMobil with respect to its operation of the large Baytown, Texas petrochemical complex. This is one of the few cases to be tried before a court, and now, on May 15, 2015, an appeal has been filed with the Fifth Circuit by the plaintiffs. The Case No. is 15-20030, and, again, the brief is very long and comprehensive.
  • Not your dog? Last November, the U.S. District Court for Utah ruled that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate the “taking” of the Utah prairie dog–a species located only in Utah–on non-federal land. The species has, however, been listed as an endangered

    • species since 1973. The decision, People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., has been appealed to the Tenth Circuit, and the Justice Department has now filed a very comprehensive brief in this matter; the Case No. is 14-4165.

Posted
by

On May 12, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted a request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement on new Interior Department rules which are intended, under the Department’s reading of the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 42, to prohibit the interstate transportation of listed “injurious species”; the species in this matter are the Reticulated Python and the Green Anaconda. These species are raised and sold in commerce, but if they escape, they can become dangerous predators. The case is United States Association of Reptile Keepers, Inc., v. Jewell. Although the case make be about snakes, it serves as a reminder that a public agency is not permitted to exceed its authority when promulgating rules.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On April 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued another unanimous ruling holding that the right to judicial review is a fundamental tenet of administrative law. The case is Mach Mining, LLC, v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and involves the right to challenge the conciliation proceedings of the EEOC in employment discrimination matters. Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Court ruled that “the strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action” applies to the informal conciliation procedures used by the Commission in attempting to resolve these disputes, and accordingly rejected the holding of the appeals court that the statutory directive in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to attempt conciliation is not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court concluded its opinion by stating that, “Judicial review of administrative action is the norm in our legal system, and nothing in Title VII withdraws the courts’ authority to determine whether the EEOC has fulfilled its duty to attempt conciliation of claims”.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Nevada State Contractors Board anticipates that more than 100 of the state’s leading contractors are expected to attend the Nevada State Contractors Board’s third annual “Training Day” this summer in Reno and Las Vegas. The intensive day-long seminar, scheduled to occur on August 6 will bring together experts in various fields to help Nevada contractors to improve their business operations and processes. The training seminars will held concurrently in Reno at 5400 Mill Street and in Las Vegas in the Clark County Building Department located at 4701 West Russell Road. Past contractor Training Days have featured experts on marketing, business development, finance, capital budgeting, building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, contractor regulation and more.

Additional Source: Nevada State Contractors Board, Horizons (May 2015)

Posted
by

On May 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit again ruled that the National Association of Home Builders lacked representational standing to challenge a “preliminary, internal determination” made by EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 that two stretches of the Santa Cruz River in Southern Arizona are traditional navigable waters. The case is National Association of Homebuilders, et al., v. EPA.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Cal/OSHA standards, located at Title 8 Cal. Code of Regs.§§ 1532.1, 5198, 5194, change how employers are required to notify their employees about potential lead hazards. Employers are required to inform their employees about potential lead hazards with work area signs and labels for lead-contaminated equipment and clothing that specifically include language about lead’s danger to the central nervous system and reproductive health. Employers must comply with the new labeling rules by June 2015 and new signage rules by June 2016. Cal/OSHA has made available downloadable and printable Lead Warning Signs in English and Spanish and Lead Warning Labels in English and Spanish, and provided tips on posting the signs and using the labels.

Additional Sources: California Department of Public Health, For Employers – Lead Warning Signs and Labels; California Department of Public Health Winter 2015 Newsletter; CSLB Spring 2015 Newsletter, Employers Must Use Cal/OSHA’s New Lead Warning Signs

Posted
by

In its 2015 Spring Newsletter, the California Contractors State License Board in its article titled Away From a Construction Site? Leave Contact Info with Your Crew encouraging project supervisors and prime contractors to leave a business card with their employees in case a member of California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force (LETF), which includes the CSLB, Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and Employment Development Department, drops by the project. During a drop-by visit, the LETF investigator is trying to identify the company, contractor license number and a telephone number where a responsible party can be reached so that the investigator can confirm that all licensing, workers’ compensation insurance, employment, and safety laws are being followed. If there is no one in able to answer these questions, the investigator must make a return visit to the project. The CSLB reported in its newsletter that, in 2014, LETF conducted 613 inspections of active job sites and, 84% of the time, the project was not in compliance with state license, labor, tax, health, safety, or insurance regulations.

Posted
by

January 1, 2015, the new C-22 Asbestos Abatement contractor license classification in California became official. The Asbestos Certification (contemplated by Business & Professions Code § 7058.5) continues to be available for contractors who perform asbestos-related work only within the scope of their contractor licenses and these contractors are not required to add the C-22 classification to their existing license.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Joseph Jean and Alexander Hardiman published their client alert titled Don’t Trust, Verify: What Every Business Needs to Know About Certificates of Insurance. The Alert discusses the general rule in New York that a certificate of insurance (COI), by itself, does not provide insurance coverage. It explains that this means that businesses that rely solely on COIs as evidence of their status as additional insureds might not actually be covered in the event of a loss. A recent New York case, however, is a reminder that this general rule is not the end of the inquiry and that there are possible ways to still get recovery.

Additional Source: Southwest Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co., No. 153861/2014, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 30544(U) (N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 13, 2015).