om Paint Square-OSHA Reviewing All Permissible Exposure Limits

Saw this on my Paint Square newsletter this morning...

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration is conducting a comprehensive review of hundreds of chemical Permissible Exposure Limits that the agency says are dangerously outdated.
The review could lead to lower, or even first-time, PELs for hundreds of chemicals. The impact could reverberate throughout the paint and coatings industry, where scores of chemicals are already subject to PELs and new health risks from workplace chemical exposures are being reported almost daily.
‘1950s-era Science’
"Many of our permissible exposure limits are based on 1950s-era science that we now realize is inadequate to protect workers in 21st-century workplaces," Dr. David Michaels, OSHA Administrator, has said.  READ ALL OF THIS ARTICLE AT PAINT SQUARE BY CLICKING HERE

Nevada Court UpHoldsFair Use" of Others Work In Righthaven vs. Realty One Group, Inc et al

As a blogger, I ofetn use someone else work to comment on, quote from and post some of the work to interest our readers...I always link back to the website where I found it and say "Read the Rest of This Article By Clicking Here". Our goal has always been educational-give people information and they will make good decisions.

In Nevada, a company called Righthaven has been making bloggers lives miserable by siccing their lawyers on them for using copyrighted work that Righthaven buys from newspapers. They have done pretty well by bullying small bloggers who, like me, don't have tons of dough to fight the SOB's. Apparently they've forced monetary settlements from a number of people and small business. 

However, in a delightful ruling recently by a Nevada Court, a suit filed by Righthaven against a Nevada Realtor and blogger was found to be without merit as the court found the blogger to be within the legal boundaries of the fair use doctrine.

The defendant had used 8 lines from a 30 page article, linked back to the article and still got sued...Congrats go to Michael Nelson for his victory over the man...
Read the courts decision by clicking here.

Ouch Complaints Like This Don't Help One's Business....

I have my Google account set up to bring alerts on certain words/terms...this showed up today. Read and Take Heed   JM Romich Enterprises/ Everydry Waterproofing of upstate NY
Posted: 2010-12-04 by   alco
Sales Tactics / ethics Complaint Rating: Company information: Everydry Waterproofing of Upstate New York Rochester, New York United States These people made an appointment with my 89 year old mother to do a free inspection of her basement. After four hours of pushing her, she signed a contract for $11, 000 to replace a basement wall that they told her could collapse if it wasn't tended to immediately. here is the rest of the story. there is some joint' cracking near the top of the cellar wall...been that way for probably 20 years. they also were going to sell her a new dehumidifier becase theirs was less expensive to run claiming hers cost $5.00 per day and theirs cost only $2.00 per day. My mother told them that she did not own the house...(my Brother does)... they didn't care, she lives in a condo community where all major structural repars have to be cleared by the board, and most of those repairs are covered under the HOA.. they didn't care. She told them that she wanted to talk to her son first, they told her that if she didn't sign that day she would miss out on the $4333.00 discount they offered against the original estimate of $15, 328! Per the workers in the office, the owners were not available when i called at 8 am on Saturday morning and that he contract and check were with the salesman and he was out of town. I went to their office to get the contract voided and they had nothing there for me as per my request. when I threatened to have everyone arrested, low and behold, they got Mrs Romich on the phone 10 minutes after i left the office i got a call from Mr Romich telling me that if i met him at the office on Monday morning, he would give me back everything. he said the contract and check were locked up in the office...so i guess the contract and check weren't with the salesman after all. So here it is, these people obviously don't care much about ethics, they'll hammer away at an 89 year-old woman (who, by the way, is virtually deaf) to get her to spend $11, 000 on a $50 repair! These people would have to come up in the world just to be bottom feeders! The old rule always applies...iif someone offers you a discount if you committ today... they are ripping you off. Always know who you are doing business with and always get multiple estimates
Comments	United States	Contractors
Share with others:
Was the above complaint useful to you?

Re-Blog From Construction Law Signal-Pennsylvania Supreme Court Declares Insurance Defense Costs May Not Be Reimbursable

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Declares Insurance Defense Costs May Not Be Reimbursable

Posted by Elise M. Carlin on December 02, 2010 

Jonathan A. Cass, senior counsel with Cohen Seglias contributed to this post.

Your company is sued as a result of an alleged constructive defect. You tender the claim to your insurance company and they hire and pay for a lawyer to defend your company. It is later determined that there is no insurance coverage for the construction defect claim. Can the insurance company force your company to reimburse it for all the costs that it spent in defending the action? The answer depends on the language contained in your insurance policy.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that an insurer who assumes an insured’s defense is forbidden from seeking reimbursement of defense costs from the insured unless the policy specifically permits it to do so.

READ AL OF THIS ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Re-Blog From The INSURANCE COVERAGE MONITOR-Unexpected Faulty Workmanship is Covered

 Saw  this intersting article on Insurance Coverage Monitor

Unexpected Faulty Workmanship is Covered

Unexpected Faulty Workmanship is Covered

by Jill Berkeley on November 10, 2010

In Sheehan Construction Co. v. Continental Insurance Co., ___ N.E. 2d ___ (Ind. 2010), the Indiana Supreme Court joined those jurisdictions that have found faulty workmanship can be an accident so long as the resulting damage is an event that occurs without expectation or foresight.  The Court recognized that whether an event occurs with a “lack of intentionality” depends on the facts of each case.  It also noted that the CGL insurers, as of 1986, carved out from the “your work exclusion” an exception for work done by subcontractors.  If the initial grant of coverage for accidents did not cover faulty workmanship, there would be no reason for the “your work exclusion.”The facts in this case were typical.  Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that after experiencing water leaks in their homes, they experienced leaking windows, fungus growth on the siding, decayed OSB sheathing, deteriorating and decaying floor joists, and water damage to the interior of the home including water stained carpeting.  Sheehan Construction Company was the general contractor on the project and was responsible for hiring subcontractors who actually built the houses.  The plaintiffs alleged that these problems were caused by the faulty workmanship of Sheehan’s subcontractors which included lack of adequate flashing and quality caulking around the windows, lack of a weather resistant barrier behind the brick veneer to protect the wood components of the wall, improperly installed roofing shingles, improperly flashed or sealed openings for the chimney and vents, and inadequate ventilation in the crawl space.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

Re-Blog From The INSURANCE COVERAGE MONITOR-California Supreme Court Determines That Administrative Proceedings Can Be “Suits”

Saw  this article from a Google alert...

 California Supreme Court Determines That Administrative Proceedings Can Be “Suits”

by William Um on December 3, 2010

In a closely watched case by the insurance bar, the California Supreme Court in Ameron Int’l v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania ruled that a proceeding before the United States Department of the Interior Board of Contract Appeals (“IBCA”) constitutes a “suit” that triggers insurance coverage under a commercial general liability policy. In its unanimous opinion published on November 18, 2010, the Supreme Court limited the reach of its prior Foster-Gardner v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. decision, which rigidly defined the term “suit” as a court proceeding initiated by the filing of a complaint.
The proceeding at issue in Ameron was a federal adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge of the former United States Department of IBCA. The proceeding involved “22 days of trial, numerous witnesses, and substantial evidence,” and involved many of the same procedural requirements as a normal lawsuit filed in a court of law. In the IBCA proceeding, witnesses testify under oath and are subject to cross-examination by opposing counsel, and evidence is presented subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. After considering all these factors, the Supreme Court determined that given the nature of the quasi-judicial proceeding before the IBCA, a reasonable insured would expect that the IBCA proceeding was the equivalent of a “suit” and, therefore, would expect the policy to provide coverage for defense of such proceedings.

This case is significant because the Supreme Court showed a willingness to carve out an exception to the “bright-line” standard set forth in Foster-Gardner that only a lawsuit filed in court could constitute a “suit” as that term appears in most general liability policies. Foster-Gardner was decided by a sharply divided Supreme Court at the time with a critical dissenting opinion by Justice Kennard. In Ameron, Justice Kennard wrote a concurring opinion, wherein she reiterated her strong belief that Foster-Gardner was wrongly decided. Although Justice Kennard would prefer that Foster-Gardner be overruled, she believes that the Ameron decision “is at least a step in the right direction.”
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT INSURANCE COVERAGE MONITOR BY CLICKING HERE.