NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status
September 23, 2024 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists.
Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers
In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at
aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause
November 11, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after the jury determined there was no coverage for a leaking pipe. Mendoza v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. EXIS 5477 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2024).
The Mendoza's third amended complaint alleged their home was damaged "by overflow of water from the dwelling's plumbing system resulting from a broken pipe, which overflow undermined the structural integrity of the dwelling."
The Mendozas insured their home under a policy issued by Pacific. The policy insured the property against "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" except where expressly excluded. The Mendozas submitted a claim Pacific paid approximately $1800 for the loss and closed the claim. The amount paid did not include payment for any structural damage to the home. The Mendozas alleged that Pacific's failure to conduct a full and fair investigation into the structural damage and its inadequate payment of benefits was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Significant Increase in Colorado Tort Damages Caps Now in Effect Under Recent Legislation
January 28, 2025 —
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPColorado’s recently enacted legislation (HB 24-1472), which significantly increases damages caps for tort actions, is now in effect. Given the legislation’s January 1, 2025, effective date, an early-2025 increase in new filings is anticipated for cases that otherwise could have been filed in 2024.
The increases include:
- For noneconomic damages in tort actions (other than against medical professionals), more than double the previous cap to $1.5 million (with future inflation adjustment).[1]
- In wrongful death actions (other than against medical professionals), a greater than threefold increase from the previous limit to $2.125 million (with future inflation adjustment).[2]
- In medical professional actions for wrongful death, a 50% increase from the previous overall cap to $1.575 million in 2029 (with future inflation adjustment). For injury claims, more than double the previous cap for noneconomic damages to $875,000 in 2029 (with future inflation adjustment).[3]
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation
November 05, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the September 26, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series,
Clifford Shapiro presented on Guided Choice Mediation (“GCM”) and how it can lead to better outcomes in construction disputes.
GCM is an approach to mediation that focuses on early and efficient dispute resolution, which prominent mediators created as a public interest project.
Shapiro described his particular variant of GCM based on his experience while acknowledging that other Guided Choice Mediators’ processes may differ from his in various ways. Shapiro’s brand of GCM focuses on ensuring that parties have reasonable expectations and appropriate settlement authority prior to arriving at a mediation. Some of the strategies to help accomplish these noble goals are (i) early mediator engagement, (ii) mediator facilitation of information exchange, (iii) mediator involvement with insurance issues (particularly important in construction defect cases, especially those with multiple defendants), (iii) pre-mediation ex parte meetings, and (iv) mediator participation in risk analysis. These strategies are not typical in the more traditional/historic approach to mediation in which mediation is scheduled based on a scheduling order, mediation statements are sent to the mediator roughly a week before the scheduled mediation (and sometimes not even shared with anyone other than the mediator), and the parties speak with the mediator for the first time on the day of the mediation.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct
November 18, 2024 —
Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute ResolverVacating an arbitration award is often seen as an uphill battle. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “courts may only vacate an arbitrator’s decision ‘only in very unusual circumstances.’” Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 568 (2013). The Federal Arbitration Act provides limited grounds to seek the vacatur of an arbitration award. In Lund-Ross Constructors v. Duke of Omaga, LLC, ___ N.W.3d ___, 33 Neb.App.73, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found that an arbitrator’s conduct warranted the partial vacatur of the award, which granted relief to a subcontractor who filed a counterclaim after the arbitration hearing had closed.
Lund-Ross contracted with Duke of Omaha to build an apartment complex in Omaha. Lund-Ross, in turn, sub-contracted with A Raymond Plumbing. Following completion of the building, Owner withheld payment from Lund-Ross, who in turn, withheld payment from Raymond. Both Lund-Ross and Raymond filed mechanics liens and initiated suits; Raymond’s suit ultimately was dismissed for want of prosecution. Lund-Ross proceeded to arbitration with Owner, naming Raymond as a respondent. Raymond did not participate in the arbitration as a claimant at the time of the hearing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLPMr. Witry may be contacted at
bwitry@lauriebrennan.com
New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable
November 05, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneDispute resolution provisions that grant one party the unilateral right to choose either litigation or arbitration to resolve disputes are common in the construction industry. The main difference between the two forums is that courts are more likely to strictly enforce contract terms as written as well as the applicable law, while arbitrators make decisions on more equitable considerations, untethered to the contract terms and—to some degree—the law. The party with the sole discretion to select the dispute resolution procedure can select the process most beneficial to its interests based on the nature of the dispute, regardless of who brings the claims. In Atlas Electrical Construction, Inc. v. Flintco, LLC, 550 P.3d 881 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico recently held that an arbitration provision in a subcontract, under which the contractor retained the exclusive right to choose whether disputes arising under the subcontract were litigated in court or arbitrated was unreasonably one-sided, substantively unconscionable, and unenforceable.
The Atlas Electrical case involved two sophisticated entities with equal bargaining strength to negotiate the terms of a subcontract. The parties agreed to a subcontract provision which provided in the relevant part:
In the event [contractor] and [subcontractor] cannot resolve the dispute through direct discussions or mediation … then the dispute shall, at the sole discretion of [contractor], be decided either by submission to (a) arbitration … or (b) litigation …
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim
September 16, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses.
The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues."
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, D
eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing EconomyEngineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile UpgradeChicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing RequirementsBuyers Are Flocking to NYC’s Suburbs. Too Bad There Aren’t Many Homes to Sell.Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection ChangesDuty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs InMassive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AICalifornia Bid Protests: Responsiveness and MaterialityBuilders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?Forget Backyard Pools, Build a Swimming Pond InsteadTraub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Top Lawyers” in New York by Hudson Valley MagazineHigh Court Case Review Frees Jailed Buffalo Billions Contractor CEOHail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged SidingFirst Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty WorkEmployee Handbooks—Your First Line of DefenseAfter Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse, Fast-Rising Replacement EmergesLegislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ JobHaight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising StarsCourt Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure ClaimsFeds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant FundingNew York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made WholeWhy Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of SustainabilitySeeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge CollapseScarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: CitiesBefore Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the RecessionOhio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty WorkSixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky LawBuilding a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company RiskPresident Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline BillLate Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect ClaimHawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are PollutantsFormer Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work OrderClaims Against Broker DismissedProperty Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not CoveredCal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 EmergencyInsurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim RejectedA Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' CompPipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability CarrierAvoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars ListsContractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / ConsultantTexas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.” 
