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 cou
EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee LoanManhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real EstateExtrinsic Evidence, or Eight Corners? Texas Court Sheds Light on Determining the Duty to DefendSave A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin DoctrineImportant New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect SettlementsAppeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General ContractorOnline Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH EnvironmentClaims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary JudgmentLaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a FixOrange County Home Builder Dead at 93Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor ActChambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law FirmNYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety IssuesLegislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025 Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into WaterwaysNew York City Construction: Boom Times Again?Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential BuildsHydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green PlanningMitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction ProjectsSFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to
Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado
OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality
Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire
Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract
Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim
Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter
CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case
A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous
Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims
Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash
Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property
The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver
New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”
Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied
ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats
When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?
Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals
Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions
Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case
Updates to AIA Contract Applications
Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand
Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up
Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim
Construction Defect Claims Not Covered
Default Should Never Be An Option
Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways
Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage
Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant
Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines
Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma
Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session
Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It
Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?
Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers
Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”
Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks
2017 California Construction Law Update
Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate
Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action
Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial
Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late
Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned
Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists
General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer
Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund
New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors
Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party
