The Florida Supreme Court recently issued a widely reported decision, Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., which applied the concurrent cause doctrine in ruling that an all-risk homeowner’s insurance policy provides coverage when damage is the result of multiple events—so long as at least one of them is a covered peril. Plaintiff John Sebo purchased a home, which he insured under an all-risk homeowner’s policy written by American Home. As an “all-risk” policy, it provided coverage for damage to property caused by all perils, except those it explicitly excluded. Design defects and faulty construction were among the excluded perils. Within less than two months of buying the house, Mr. Sebo discovered major leaks during rainstorms, which were later found to be the result of design defects and faulty construction. Hurricane Wilma then caused even more damage. When Mr. Sebo sought coverage for damage from the water intrusion, American Home denied most of the claim on the grounds that it was caused by design defects and faulty construction—which were excluded perils. But the Florida Supreme Court found coverage.
9th Circuit Rejects NEPA Challenges To Planned 1.9-Mile Underground Light Rail Extension Project in Downtown LA
On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Japanese Village, LLC v. Federal Transit Administration, et al., affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement to the government defendants following a painstaking review of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) arguments lodged by Japanese Village, LLC and Today’s IV, Inc. dba Westin Bonaventure Hotel (Bonaventure) against the construction of the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project, a 1.9-mile light rail extension line in downtown Los Angeles.
EPA’s List of Chemicals Subject to Risk Assessment Continues
Today, our colleagues Kevin Ashe and Rebecca Lee published an alert on the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent listing of certain chemicals as subject to review for risks to human health and to the environment. EPA’s actions follow recent amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act requiring it to timely complete risk assessments for chemicals manufacture, distributed and imported to the U.S. They encourage companies with U.S. operations to consider the implications if they use chemicals that have been list or may be listed by the EPA. The alert is titled Toxic Substances Control Act Overhaul.
Ninth Circuit Rules Surface Transportation Board Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Certain Railroad Repair Work
On November 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that the Surface Transportation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over “railroad repair work done at the direction of a federally regulated rail carrier but performed by a contractor rather than the carrier itself.” The case is Oregon Scenic Coast Railway, LLC v. State of Oregon Department of State Lands. Continue Reading ›
Cal CSLB Registrar of Contractors and Chief Deputy Registrar Announce Pending Retirement
On November 29, the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) issued an Industry Bulletin via email announcing that Cindi A. Christenson, the CSLB’s current Registrar of Contractors, will be retiring effective May 1, 2017. Christenson, the CSLB’s first female Registrar, was appointed to this position on January 1, 2015. Prior to her appointment as the Registrar, Christenson served for six years as CLSB’s Chief Deputy Registrar. A nationwide executive search for Christenson’s replacement is in process.
DOL’s New Overtime Regulations Face Uncertain Fate
Today, our colleagues Julia Judish, Rebecca Carr Rizzo and John Scalia published their alert discussing a U.S. District Court’s very recent issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing its new overtime regulations. Those regulations, which would have more than doubled the minimum salary level required to exempt executive, administrative, professional, and salaried computer professional employees from eligibility for overtime, would otherwise have been effective December 1. They note that although a preliminary injunction is a temporary court order, in light of the timing of the preliminary injunction and the upcoming change of Presidential administration, the ruling may foreclose the overtime regulations from ever taking effect. The alert is titled Preliminary Injunction Creates Uncertain Fate For Overtime Regulations.
Additional Source: U.S. Department of Labor More Than Doubles Minimum Salary Levels for FLSA Overtime Exemptions; Court Issues Nationwide Preliminary Injunction of DOL’s Overtime Rules Effective Dec 1
Court Issues Nationwide Preliminary Injunction of DOL’s Overtime Rules Effective Dec 1
In Federal Court Rules New Overtime Requirements Won’t Go Into Effect on December 1, our colleague Scott Flick discusses the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ ruling in a civil action challenging the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new overtime regulations. The civil action that was brought by the State of Nevada and 20 other states and recently consolidated with a related civil action brought by the Plano Chamber of Congress and over 50 other business organizations. Today, in response to a motion filed by states, the District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, preventing the new salary threshold (and scheduled increases to it in future years) from going into effect until the District Court has had an opportunity to rule on the legality of the rule change. Effective December 1, the Final Rule would have, among other things, increased the minimum salary level for exempt employees from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $921 per week ($47,892 annually). In its ruling, the District Court made it clear that the DOL will have a hard time defending the rule change.
9th Circuit Holds Hawaii County Ordinances Regulating Genetically-Engineered Plants and Cultivation Are Preempted
On November 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued three unanimous decisions affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii’s rulings that three local county ordinances—enacted by the counties of Maui, Kauai and Hawaii—are preempted by the laws of the State of Hawaii or the federal Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7 U.S.C. § 7756(b). The ordinances purported to regulate pesticides and genetically engineered plants or even banning the cultivation and testing of genetically-engineered plants. The published opinions are Atay, et al., v. County of Maui, et al., and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., v. County of Kauai. The unpublished opinion is Hawai’i Papaya Industry Assoc., et al., v. County of Hawaii.
The Maui County ordinance was the result of a citizens’ initiative, and the Kauai ordinance was enacted in the regular course of county business. In the Syngenta Seeds case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “field preemption” test devised by the Hawaii Supreme Court required the rejection of Kauai County ordinance. In the Atay case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the provisions of the Maui County ordinance were preempted by both the PPA and impliedly by the laws of the State of Hawaii.
In the third case, the Ninth Circuit held that a recently-enacted ordinance of the County of Hawaii which bans the “open air testing of genetically engineered organisms of any kind” and “open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops of plants” was preempted by federal and state law.
Parens Patriae Standing Argument Scrambled (California Egg Producer Standard)
On November 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of State of Missouri ex rel. Chris Koster, et al., v. Harris, in which it largely affirmed the lower court’s decision that the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa lack standing to challenge the California laws and policies that mandate that no eggs can be sold in California that are the produced in states that do not adhere to California’s conditions under which chickens must be kept. One lesson to draw from this is that it’s very difficult to persuade the courts that the Commerce Clause always limits what the state legislatures can do. Continue Reading ›
TVA’s Tree-Cutting Policy Gets the Axe
On November 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case of Sherwood, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling that a complaint filed by many property owners that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 to 4370m–12 (2012) (NEPA) was now moot because TVA had filed assurances with the lower court that the policy had been suspended. Continue Reading ›