Posted
by

In a recent press release, California Contractors State License Board Registrar Steve Sands reminds contractors that “[c]ontractor licenses are not transferrable between anyone: associates, friends – family members included.” In California, all home improvement jobs valued at $500 or more, which includes both labor, material costs and other item costs combined, are required to be performed by a person or entity that is properly licensed by the CSLB. The licensee is responsible for the work performed under its contractor’s license number being done in all material respects in accordance with accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction. If it is not, it is exposed to disciplinary action by the CSLB, which could include a civil penalty and/or citation, among other things. It is also responsible for maintaining the appropriate bond (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7071.6) and workers’ compensation insurance (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7071.6).

Moreover, California Bus. & Prof. Code § 7068.1 requires the licensee’s qualifier (e.g., the responsible managing employee (RME), officer (RMO), or manager/member (RMM)) to be responsible for exercising that “direct supervision and control of his or her employer’s or principal’s construction operations” to secure compliance with the Contractors’ State License Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq. A violation of Section 7068.1 comes with a hefty civil penalty and the possibility of a criminal penalty. Subdivision (e) of Section 7068.1 contemplates that it “shall constitute a cause for disciplinary action and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months, by a fine of not less than three thousand dollars ($3,000), but not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.” The CSLB recently warned license qualifiers that, “[w]ith consumer risk in mind, CSLB is aggressively and stringently taking enforcement actions against those involved in this trend [of not properly supervising work that is being performed]… .”

Additional Source: CSLB, Watch Out for Contractor’s Who Try to ‘Share’ a License

Posted
by

Yesterday, Pillsbury attorneys Michael Hindus, Eric Save and John McNeece published their advisory titled Mexico’s Guidelines for Clean Energy Certificates Will Support Renewable Energy Development. The Advisory discusses, as part of a historic restructuring of its electrical power sector, Mexico’s creation of a market for tradable Clean Energy Certificates, which many industry participants will be required to obtain. Draft guidelines proposed by the Mexican Ministry of Energy set forth the criteria for granting these clean energy certificates, a framework for buying and selling them, and a procedure for establishing the obligations of market participants to obtain the certificates. Final guidelines will be issued shortly.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Michael Hindus, Eric Save or John McNeece, the authors of this blog.

Posted
by

On October 24, 2014, the D.C. Circuit rejected a challenge to the revised OSHA Hazardous Communication Standard insofar as it applies to “combustible dust”. The case is National Oilseed Processors Association, et al., v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, et al. The Standard was substantially revised in 2012 to conform with the Globally Harmonized System, a uniform international chemical labeling system. The Hazard Communication, 77 Fed. Reg. 17,574 (Mar. 26, 2012) (“Final Rule“) designated “combustible dust” as a hazardous chemical subject to the Standard, although OSHA has yet to develop a workplace standard addressing the hazards of combustible dust in the workplace. This decision may be of interest to all manufacturers and employers subject to the Hazard Communication Standard; it places in context the development of the rule over the past 30 years, and demonstrates again how difficult it is to have such rules overturned.

The National Oilseed Processors Association includes in its membership the owners and operators of grain handling businesses who have a keen interest in this new standard. The Association argued, and the court rejected, contentions that it was not provided adequate notice of the inclusion of combustible dust in the rule, that OSHA’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence as the statute requires, and that their constitutional Due Process rights were violated in that the agency, by failing to define “combustible dust”, did not provide fair warning of the agency’s enforcement measures.

Additional Sources: OSHA Fact Sheet Hazard Communication Standard Final Rule

Posted
by

On July 16, 2014, the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland issued an important Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq. (RCRA), ruling in the case of Sherrill, et al. v. The Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore, 2014 WL 3555956. The City of Baltimore has taken steps to revive and remediate a waterfront property that was the site of a former chemical manufacturing plant. It is conceded that spills and releases of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes have contaminated the site, but the City has entered into an agreement with a casino operator to construct a casino on the property. The matter has been very controversial, causing the plaintiffs in this lawsuit to file a citizen suit under Section 6972 of the RCRA alleging that contaminants are migrating off the property and polluting adjacent properties.

The site was placed by the city into Maryland’s Voluntary Cleanup Program, which required that the City develop adequate cleanup plans. The owner and operator of the proposed casino agreed to take over some of the cleanup operations, and has in fact undertaken waste extraction and removal actions. In connection with the cleanup, the casino operator also ensured that any storm water wastewater discharges were covered by the Maryland General Construction Storm Water Permit, which incorporated the cleanup plans.

The District Court held that this Clean Water Act (CWA) storm water discharge permit triggered the “anti-duplication” provisions of the RCRA and therefore shielded the casino operator from any RCRA liability, and these claims were dismissed. In addition, the claims against the City of Baltimore and the owner of the former chemical plant were also dismissed because the court held that those allegations were insufficiently pled. In effect, this decision expands the CWA permit shield to allegations of RCRA violations.

An appeal has been filed with the 4th Circuit.

Posted
by

The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation’s (Commission) recently amended the existing rules governing air conditioning and refrigeration contractor applicable codes, 16 Tex. Admin. Code, Chapter 75, § 75.110. Revised Section 75.110 states:

“(a) The commission adopts the following as the applicable codes as referenced in the Act and this chapter: (1) 2009 edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code; and (2) 2009 editions of the International Mechanical Code, the International Residential Code, and other applicable codes.
(b) The 2009 codes will be in effect through December 31, 2014. All air conditioning and refrigeration work permitted or started prior to January 1, 2015, may be completed in accordance with the 2009 code editions.
(c) The commission adopts the following as the applicable codes as referenced in the Act and this chapter: (1) 2012 edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code; and (2) 2012 editions of the International Mechanical Code, the International Residential Code, and other applicable codes.
(d) The 2012 codes will be effective January 1, 2015.” (Emphases added).

The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (Department) drafted and distributed the proposed rules to persons internal and external to the agency and published them in the April 11, 2014, issue of the Texas Register (39 Tex. Reg. 2735). Prior to the deadline for public comments (May 12, 2014), the Department received four public comments regarding the proposed rules. The public comments and the Department’s response to the public comments are available in its Justification for Administrative Rule Adoption.

The Department also recently lowered the number of hours of instruction on state laws and rules required annually from 2 hours to 1 hour, effective for licenses that expire on or after June 1, 2014. The total number of continuing education hours required annually, however, will remain at 8 hours. The other 7 hours of instruction must be courses taken in one or more of the following subjects: (1) Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 1302, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Contractors; (2) Title 16, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 75, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Administrative Rules; (3) The International Mechanical Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, or other applicable codes; (4) Ethics; (5) Business practices; or (6) Technical requirements. Continuing education courses must be completed within the term of the license being renewed. The continuing education courses must have been taken within the term of the license to be renewed, e.g., if the license expires on December 15, 2013, the continuing education courses must have been taken between December 15, 2012 and December 15, 2013.

Additional Source: Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, Justification for Administrative Rule Adoption, Air Condition and Refrigeration Contractors; Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Contractors Continuing Education

Posted
by

The practice of including an arbitration provision in all types of contracts has become quite common. Including such a provision in a contract should, however, always be a considered choice, based on sound advice, to avoid any misunderstandings about the breadth, scope and consequences of including such a provision. Yesterday, Pillsbury attorney Ray Sweigart published his client advisory titled About that English Law and Arbitration Clause: Consider enforcement implications before signing. In the Advisory, he discusses the practice, in international commercial contracts, parties with no operations or other relationship to England or the United Kingdom specifying English law as controlling, with a clause providing for arbitration of disputes in London. In Cruz City v Unitech & Ors, [2014] EWHC 3131 (Comm), the English High Court was faced with a dispute over enforcement of an arbitral award between a Mauritian claimant and an Indian defendant. Noting the English law policy that judgments of the English court and English arbitration awards should be complied with, and under the principles set out in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd (No 2), [2008] EWCA Civ 303, the court held that it was appropriate to enforce an arbitral award by the appointment of receivers over the foreign defendant’s assets.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Ray Sweigart, the author of this blog.

Posted
by

The Joint Board of Licensure and Certification, State of New Hampshire compiled a list of the most common electrical installation deficiencies in the State of New Hampshire in 2014, formatted to the 2014 edition of the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70-2014) as follows:

  • Use of electrical equipment without following the manufacturer’s instructions, including installation and securing of expansion fittings in runs of Rigid Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Conduit and improper tightening of electrical connections
  • Inadequate clearances: working space, clear spaces, headroom and dedicated equipment space
  • Improper sealing of underground raceways
  • Improper grounding of electrode system
  • Bonding of metal water piping in the vicinity of separately derived systems
  • Wireways and consideration of 310.15(B)(3)(a)
  • Improper use of NM cable in other structures permitted to be Types III, IV or V construction
  • Improper installation of exposed vertical risers from fixed equipment
  • Improper use of Flexible Cords and Cables, Article 400
  • Failure to use weather-resistant outdoor receptacles
  • Inadequate mounting height of switches
  • Failure to use proper methods for circuit directories and circuit Identification
  • Improper connection of septic pumps
  • Failure to comply with signage requirements
  • Lack of separation of Emergency System Conductors from other conductors
  • Misunderstanding of the requirements for the installation of branch circuits supplying emergency lighting

Additional Source: Electrical Licensing Concerns And Commonly Found Installation Deficiencies in the State of New Hampshire 2014

Posted
by

On October 13, 2004, California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed Susan Granzella of Sacramento as a new (public) member of the California Contractors State License Board. Prior to the appointment, according to the Governor, Granzella “held several positions at Visa Inc. from 1996 to 2014, including senior director and vice president for technical documentation and audit and compliance coordination for global development.” The CSLB further noted that, in the latter role, Granzella “oversaw Visa’s technical writing and publishing efforts, distributing content internationally to banks and processors, and managed staff in both the United States and India.” Registrar of Contractors Steve Sands swore in Ganzella on October 21, 2014, and her term continues through June 1, 2016. With Granzella’s appointment, there remains only one vacancy on the 15-member Board. Congratulations and welcome!

Additional Information: CSLB, Industry Bulletin # 14-16 (Oct. 22, 2014).

Posted
by

On October 20, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the commercial liability insurance policies purchased by Headwaters Resources, Inc. contained unambiguous “pollution exclusion” provisions which excluded Headwaters’ demand that its insurers reimburse its litigation defense costs. The case is Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company and ACE American Insurance Company.

Headwaters constructed a golf course in Chesapeake, Virginia, using fly ash, which is derived from coal ash, as a fill material. Several hundred homeowners sued Headwaters in Virginia state court alleging that that the use of fly ash caused property damages and bodily injuries as a result of the pollution generated by this use of the fly ash. Both insurers denied coverage, and Headwaters sued the insurance companies in a federal district court in Utah. At issue were the policy exclusions which “excise coverage for ‘bodily injury’ and ‘property damage’ that stems from ‘actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants” when combined with at least one of five circumstances enumerated in lettered subparts.”

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s holding that the pollution exclusion provisions were unambiguous and therefore the policies do not cover these claims; the district court found that the “the complaints in the . . . lawsuits alleged bodily injury and property damage arising out of the actual or threatened dispersal of pollutants from waste that was processed by Headwaters,” and “[t]aken broadly, the complaints allege pollution of the type that falls within the pollution exclusions in all the policies.” The Court of Appeals also noted that Headwaters was free to purchase special purpose coverage for pollution liability, but chose not to do so.

In the Court of Appeals decision, it notes that “[s]ince the 1970’s, the extent to which pollution exclusions apply to preclude coverage in commercial general liability (CGL) policies has been a ubiquitous feature of insurance litigation. Generally speaking, jurisdictions that have addressed the scope of the ‘total pollution exclusion’ fall into one of two camps: (1) courts that apply the pollution exclusions as written because they find them clear and unmistakable; and (2) courts that narrow the exclusions to ‘traditional environmental pollution,’ often because they find the terms of the exclusion to be ambiguous due to their broad applicability.” It also notes that the Utah Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on this debate.

Posted
by

The Texas Supreme Court confirmed that it will decide an issue of Texas law that was certified to the Court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The case is McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation v. The Phoenix Insurance Company; The Travelers Indemnity Company. The issue is whether the receipt of Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) letters and unilateral administrative order, issued pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), from EPA Region 6 is a “suit” that triggers a duty by the insurers to defend, investigate and settle.

McGinnes is in the waste disposal business and, in the 1960s, McGinnes removed waste from a paper mill and released it into three ponds located adjacent to the San Jacinto River. McGinnes is a potentially responsible party at the San Jacinto Waste Pits Superfund site in Harris County, Texas. McGinnes is cooperating with EPA in developing a cleanup plan for the site, but McGinnes is also being sued in state court for past violations of the state environmental laws pertaining to waste cleanups. Its liability could well be assessed at millions of dollars in addition to the cleanup costs. The Fifth Circuit believes that this issue of state law requires clarification by the Texas Supreme Court. This is an important case; different courts in different states have issued rulings coming down on both sides of this issue. No date for oral argument has been scheduled.