Posted on Mar 27, 2015
An employee responsible for plant maintenance was terminated by a manufacturing company after the employee allegedly violated a “zero-tolerance” policy for failing to properly apply the company’s lock-out/tag-out procedures to the plant’s equipment. In the plant, each maintenance employee is issued an individual lock with the employee’s lock number and when multiple employees are working on a piece of equipment, they use a “group lock” on the breaker for that area and attached their individual locks to the group lock. When the plant manager...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 24, 2015
The new owner of a Pennsylvania custom coal preparation facility that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulated since 1977 challenged whether MSHA properly had jurisdiction over the plant, and instead contended that it should be regulated by OSHA. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission concluded that MSHA jurisdiction was appropriate because the facility was engaged in the “work of preparing the coal” and the Third Circuit agreed with that conclusion. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the request to review the decision. The difference in...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 21, 2015
The Supreme Court of Iowa had to confront unsettled federal precedent to decide whether a Chinese tire manufacturer that sold thousands of tires in Iowa through an American distributor could be subject to personal jurisdiction in the state. The tire at issue exploded as it was being inflated and caused severe injuries to the individual inflating it. The individual’s family brought suit alleging that the tire was defectively designed and was unreasonably dangerous given it was prone to explode during inflation. The Chinese manufacturer has no employees or offices in the United States...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 11, 2015
Earlier today, the U.S. Department of Transportation (through PHMSA) issued changes to certain pipeline safety regulations including the performance of post-construction inspections, leak surveys of Type B onshore gas gathering lines, qualifying plastic pipe joiners, regulation of ethanol, transportation of pipe, filing of offshore pipeline condition reports, and the calculation of pressure reductions for hazardous liquid pipeline anomalies. The full rule and PHMSA’s response to the public comments about the rule are available here. The effective date of the amendments is October 1,...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 6, 2015
An owner and operator of an offshore platform hired a services contractor to diagnose and repair a malfunctioning vertical caisson pump used to pump seawater up to the platform. The services contractor’s employee was injured in performing the work and brought suit against the operator. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment to the operator. The court concluded that the operator did not retain “operational control” over the services contractor’s work given the Master Services Agreement between the operator...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 5, 2015
Company A chartered a barge to Company B as a platform for A/C generation and refrigeration of fish products. In the summer of 2011, the President of Company A wrote to Company B requesting that it examine the barge for potential electrolysis given fears that the barge had developed a starboard list. Company B responded that it did not have responsibility or the time to inspect “long-term maintenance issues.” After the last charter ended in late 2012, the barge began to take on water while carrying a cargo of scrap metal from Southeast Alaska to Seattle. Company A contacted...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 4, 2015
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment last week to an insurer finding it had no duty to defend a case brought against its insured for damages allegedly caused by vapors emitted from spray polyurethane foam (“SPF”) insulation. The insurer had issued a commercial general liability policy to the manufacturer of the insulation. The policies required the insurer to defend against underlying suits seeking damages for bodily injury or property damage caused by the manufacturer’s products, but excluded coverage for damages for bodily...
Continue Reading