Category: Environmental Law

Direct Employer Assistance and 401(k) Plan Relief Options for Employees Affected by California Wildfires

In the past week, devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, California, have caused unprecedented destruction across the region, leading to loss of life and displacing tens of thousands. While still ongoing, the fires already have the potential to be the worst natural disaster in United States history.

Quick Hits

  • Employers can assist employees affected by the Los Angeles wildfires through qualified disaster relief payments under Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code, which are tax-exempt for employees and deductible for employers.
  • The SECURE Act 2.0 allows employees impacted by federally declared disasters to take immediate distributions from their 401(k) plans without the usual penalties, provided their plan includes such provisions.

As impacted communities band together and donations begin to flow to families in need, many employers are eager to take steps to assist employees affected by the disaster.

As discussed below, the Internal Revenue Code provides employers with the ability to make qualified disaster relief payments to employees in need. In addition, for employers maintaining a 401(k) plan, optional 401(k) plan provisions can enable employees to obtain in-service distributions based on hardship or federally declared disaster.

Internal Revenue Code Section 139 Disaster Relief

Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for a federal income exclusion for payments received due to a “qualified disaster.” Under Section 139, an employer can provide employees with direct cash assistance to help them with costs incurred in connection with the disaster. Employees are not responsible for income tax, and payments are generally characterized as deductible business expenses for employers. Neither the employees nor the employer are responsible for federal payroll taxes associated with such payments.

“Qualified disasters” include presidentially declared disasters, including natural disasters and the coronavirus pandemic, terrorist or military events, common carrier accidents (e.g., passenger train collisions), and other events that the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury concludes are catastrophic. On January 8, 2025, President Biden approved a Major Disaster Declaration for California based on the Los Angeles wildfires.

In addition to the requirement that payments be made pursuant to a qualified disaster, payments must be for the purpose of reimbursing reasonable and necessary “personal, family, living, or funeral expenses,” costs of home repair, and to reimburse the replacement of personal items due to the disaster. Payment cannot be made to compensate employees for expenses already compensated by insurance.

Employers implementing qualified disaster relief plans should maintain a written policy explaining that payments are intended to approximate the losses actually incurred by employees. In the event of an audit, the employer should also be prepared to substantiate payments by retaining communications with employees and any expense documentation. Employers should also review their 401(k) plan documents to determine that payments are not characterized as deferral-eligible compensation and consider any state law implications surrounding cash payments to employees.

401(k) Hardship and Disaster Distributions

In addition to the Section 139 disaster relief described above, employees may be able to take an immediate distribution from their 401(k) plan under the hardship withdrawal rules and disaster relief under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).

Hardship Distributions

If permitted under the plan, a participant may apply for and receive an in-service distribution based on an unforeseen hardship that presents an “immediate and heavy” financial need. Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the participant’s unique facts and circumstances. Under the hardship distribution rules, expenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by an employee on account of a federally declared disaster declaration are considered immediate and heavy provided that the employee’s principal residence or principal place of employment was in the disaster zone.

The amount of a hardship distribution must be limited to the amount necessary to satisfy the need. If the employee has other resources available to meet the need, then there is no basis for a hardship distribution. In addition, hardship distributions are generally subject to income tax in the year of distribution and an additional 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if the participant is below age 59 and a half. The participant must submit certification regarding the hardship to the plan sponsor, which the plan sponsor is then entitled to rely upon.

Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions

Separate from the hardship distribution rules described above, SECURE 2.0 provides special rules for in-service distributions from retirement plans and for plan loans to certain “qualified individuals” impacted by federally declared major disasters. These special in-service distributions are not subject to the same immediate and heavy need requirements and tax rules as hardship distributions and are eligible for repayment.

SECURE 2.0 allows for the following disaster relief:

  • Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions. Qualified individuals may receive up to $22,000 of Disaster Recovery Distributions (QDRD) from eligible retirement plans (certain employer-sponsored retirement plans, such as section 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and IRAs). There are also special rollover and repayment rules available with respect to these distributions.
  • Increased Plan Loans. SECURE 2.0 provides for an increased limit on the amount a qualified individual may borrow from an eligible retirement plan. Specifically, an employer may increase the dollar limit under the plan for plan loans up to the full amount of the participant’s vested balance in their plan account, but not more than $100,000 (reduced by the amount of any outstanding plan loans). An employer can also allow up to an additional year for qualified individuals to repay their plan loans.

Under SECURE 2.0, an individual is considered a qualified individual if:

  • the individual’s principal residence at any time during the incident period of any qualified disaster is in the qualified disaster area with respect to that disaster; and
  • the individual has sustained an economic loss by reason of that qualified disaster.

A QDRD must be requested within 180 days after the date of the qualified disaster declaration (i.e., January 8, 2025, for the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires). Unlike hardship distributions, a QDRD is not subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty for participants under age 59 and a half. Further, unlike hardship distributions, taxation of the QDRD can be spread over three tax years and a qualified individual may repay all or part of the amount of a QDRD within a three-year period beginning on the day after the date of the distribution.

As indicated above, like hardship distributions, QDRDs are an optional plan feature. Accordingly, in order for QDRDs to be available, the plan’s written terms must provide for them.

© 2025, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more on the California Wildfires, visit the NLR California section

FY 2025 NDAA Includes Biotechnology Provisions

The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology announced on December 18, 2024, that the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act includes “a suite of recommendations designed to galvanize action on biotechnology” for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). According to the Commission, the bill includes new authorities and requirements — derived from its May 2024 proposals — that will position DOD and the intelligence community (IC) to maximize the benefits of biotechnology for national defense. The provisions require:

  • DOD to create and publish an annual biotechnology roadmap, including assessing barriers to adoption of biotechnology, DOD workforce needs, and opportunities for international collaboration;
  • DOD to initiate a public-private “sandbox” in which DOD and industry can securely develop use cases for artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology convergence (AIxBio);
  • IC to conduct a rapid assessment of biotechnology in the People’s Republic of China and their actions to gain superiority in this sector; and
  • IC to develop an intelligence strategy to identify and assess biotechnology threats, especially regarding supply chain vulnerabilities.

The Commission states that it worked with Congress to develop these proposals, setting the stage for further recommendations in early 2025.

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more on Biotechnology, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section

Federal Surface Transportation Agencies Issue Updated Guidance for Section 139 Environmental Review and Permitting Process

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (the Agencies) recently issued updated guidance for implementing 23 U.S.C. § 139 (Section 139). Section 139 contains special procedures and requirements for the environmental review and permitting process for surface transportation and multimodal projects. The new guidance — officially titled “Section 139 Environmental Review Process: Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking and One Federal Decision” (Guidance) — is effective immediately. The Agencies will accept public comments on the Guidance until February 18, 2025. This article highlights some of its significant features.

Background

Section 139 was first enacted in 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Section 139 was innovative as an early effort to improve the efficiency of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for highway and transit projects. Aspects of Section 139 later formed the basis for other NEPA streamlining measures such as Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, President Trump’s since-revoked Executive Order 13807, and the NEPA amendments in the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

The updated Section 139 Guidance is long overdue. FHWA and FTA’s prior version of the Section 139 guidance document was published in 2006. In the ensuing 18 years, Section 139 was amended by multiple surface transportation reauthorization laws (the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act in 2012, the FAST Act in 2015, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021); NEPA was amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2023; and the Agencies (in 2018) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (in 2020, 2022, and 2024) revised their regulations implementing NEPA.

Notable Aspects of the New Section 139 Guidance

Applicable Version of Section 139

As noted above, Section 139 was first enacted in 2005 and was amended in 2012, 2015, and 2021. The Guidance clarifies that the applicable version of the statute is the version in effect “at the time the project was initiated (e.g., publication of a notice of intent (NOI) to develop a new environmental impact statement (EIS), or a determination to proceed with an environmental assessment (EA) that will follow the Sec. 139 environmental review process).” For projects undergoing supplemental environmental review, the Guidance states that the applicable version of the statute is the version in effect at the time of the NOI for the supplemental EIS or EA (if a NOI is published) or at the time the project was initiated (if a NOI is not published for the supplemental environmental review). These applicability rules could affect a lead agency’s decision whether to publish an optional NOI for an EA or a supplemental environmental review.

The Guidance states that as a “limited exception” to the general rule described above, a supplemental EIS is exempt from the Section 139 requirements if the original EIS was “under active development” during the eight months prior to August 11, 2005 (the date of SAFETEA-LU’s enactment). The Guidance does not explain the statutory or other legal basis for this exception. This exception is similar to an exception in the prior version of the guidance for “an EIS that was under active development during the 8 months prior to August 11, 2005, and that is being re-scoped due to changes in plans or priorities, even if a revised [NOI] is published.”

As another exception, the Guidance states that FRA will not apply Section 139 to “any railroad project for which the Secretary [of Transportation] approved the funding arrangement under title 49, U.S. Code, before December 4, 2015” (the date of the FAST Act’s enactment). While this exception is consistent with 49 U.S.C. § 24201(e), the Guidance does not acknowledge that this statutory section also covers “any existing environmental review process, program, [or] agreement” for a railroad project as of the date of the FAST Act’s enactment.

Applying Section 139 to Railroad Projects

One of the most notable changes in the Guidance is the addition of FRA as an author and changes throughout the document explaining how FRA will apply Section 139. When initially enacted in 2005, Section 139 applied only to highway and public transportation capital projects; the previous version of the Section 139 guidance was issued only by FHWA and FTA. After the FAST Act was enacted, Section 139 applied to railroad projects “to the greatest extent feasible.” (49 U.S.C. § 24201(a).) The Guidance dispenses with that qualifier, suggesting that Section 139 applies categorically to all railroad and FRA projects.

“Major Project” Determinations

Certain aspects of Section 139 apply only to “major projects,” defined as a project for which (1) multiple permits, approvals, reviews, or studies are required under a federal law other than NEPA; (2) “the project sponsor has identified the reasonable availability of funds sufficient to complete the project;” (3) the project is not a covered project under Title 41 of the FAST Act; and (4) an EIS is required or, if an EA is required, the project sponsor requests that the project be treated as a major project. (23 U.S.C. § 139(a)(7).) The Guidance explains the information that FHWA, FTA, and FRA each will consider to determine whether a project has a reasonable availability of funding. The Guidance states that the federal lead agency will determine whether a project is a major project during project initiation.

Harmonizing Section 139 with the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s NEPA Amendments

The Guidance states that Section 139’s timeframes for major projects “apply in lieu of” the deadlines in NEPA. For major projects, Section 139 requires, “to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with applicable Federal law,” a schedule consistent with an agency average of not more than two years for the completion of the environmental review process for major projects. (23 U.S.C. § 139(g)(1)(B)(iii).) NEPA, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, establishes deadlines of two years for completion of an EIS and one year for completion of an EA. (42 U.S.C. § 4336a(g).) These two timing provisions are not necessarily irreconcilable. And the Guidance does not address how its interpretation is consistent with 23 U.S.C. § 139(g)(1)(C) (which states that a schedule “shall be consistent with any other relevant time periods established under Federal law) and 23 U.S.C. § 139(k)(2) (which states that nothing in Section 139 “shall be construed as superseding, amending, or modifying” NEPA).

The Guidance states that Section 139’s 200-page limit for an EIS — which applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law” (23 U.S.C. § 139(n)(3)), unlike the schedule provision described above — takes precedence over NEPA’s generally applicable page limits (150 pages, or 300 pages for a proposed action of “extraordinary complexity”).

For other provisions that are not in direct conflict — including those related to lead agency responsibilities, the project’s purpose and need statement, and considerations for using a single environmental document for all federal agency reviews and decisions — the Guidance states that Section 139 “supplements” the requirements in NEPA.

Applicable Page Limits and Deadlines

The Guidance includes two appendices with tables depicting the applicable page limits (Appendix F) and timing requirements (Appendix G) for EAs and EISs based on the date the environmental document was initiated. Curiously, the tables do not reference the 2023 NEPA amendments (which were effective upon enactment on June 3, 2023). And the tables do not recognize that agencies “may apply” CEQ’s current NEPA regulations “to ongoing activities and environmental documents” begun before the effective date of the regulations (July 1, 2024) (40 C.F.R. § 1506.12).

Applicability of Section 139 to Projects Not Having an EIS

Section 139 provides that its project development procedures apply to projects for which an EIS is prepared and “may be applied” to other projects for which an environmental document is prepared “as requested by a project sponsor and to the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary [of Transportation].” (23 U.S.C. § 139(b)(1).) The Guidance states that FHWA will determine whether, and to what extent, to apply the Section 139 process requirements to non-EIS projects “on a project-by-project basis.” The Guidance states that, in general, FRA and FTA will apply the Section 139 process requirements only to EIS projects but may apply them, in whole or in part, to non-EIS projects “depending on the circumstances of the project; these provisions could include the statute of limitations (SOL) on claims or the joint lead agency approach.”

Concurrence Points on Purpose and Need Statement and Alternatives

The Guidance states that lead agencies should, as a “best practice,” obtain written concurrence from cooperating agencies on a draft purpose and need statement and the preliminary range of alternatives before publishing the NOI, as well as later concurrence on the preferred alternative. The Guidance also states that if the purpose and need statement or the range of alternatives are modified “after consideration of the public comments received in response to the publication of the NOI, the Federal lead agency should obtain additional written concurrence from the cooperating agencies prior to publishing the Draft EIS.” While concurrence is a well-intentioned practice, it could result in unnecessary delays in the environmental review process, especially to the extent the Guidance encourages lead agencies to obtain concurrence from cooperating agencies that do not have jurisdiction to issue any authorization for the project.

Pre-NOI Activities

The Guidance encourages lead agencies to conduct significant work before publishing the NOI. This includes identifying and inviting cooperating and participating agencies, soliciting public comment on the draft purpose and need statement and preliminary range of alternatives, obtaining written concurrence from cooperating agencies on a draft purpose and need statement and preliminary range of alternatives, developing a draft coordination plan and project schedule, developing a public involvement plan, determining the extent of environmental analysis needed for each resource, identifying potentially significant environmental issues, and identifying potential mitigation strategies.

Requesting Extensions of Established Schedules or Deadlines

The Guidance states that project applicants may request an extension to a schedule or deadline by submitting a request in writing to the lead agency at least 45 days before the deadline, “explaining the project’s status, explaining why an extension is needed, and providing a proposed updated schedule. The NEPA federal lead agency will determine whether an extension will be granted. A schedule extension should be requested if a project’s schedule is not expected to meet a deadline for completion of the EIS or EA.”

Notices of Statute of Limitations on Claims

The Guidance describes each of the Agencies’ different processes related to publishing notices in the Federal Register to trigger Section 139’s short statute of limitations on claims pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 139(l) (150 days for highway, transit, and multimodal projects) or 49 U.S.C. § 24201(a)(4) (2 years for railroad projects). (If no such notice is published, NEPA’s generally applicable six-year limitations period would apply.) The Guidance includes an explanation of “risk management factors” that FHWA (but not FTA or FRA) will consider when deciding whether to publish such a notice for a project.

Planning and Environmental Linkages

The Guidance explains how statutory and regulatory authorities allow for transportation planning documents and state environmental review processes to be used during the NEPA process to inform the purpose and need statement, alternatives, description of environmental setting, and identification of environmental impacts and mitigation. The Guidance states that FHWA encourages the use of Planning and Environmental Linkages under the provisions of both 23 U.S.C. § 139(f)(4)(E) and 23 U.S.C. § 168 to the extent practicable, whereas FTA’s preference is to follow the Planning and Environmental Linkages approach in 23 C.F.R. part 450 instead of 23 U.S.C. § 139(f)(4)(E). The Guidance notes that 23 U.S.C. § 139(f)(4)(E) applies to railroad projects and encourages railroad project sponsors to coordinate with FRA on integrating planning (including the Corridor Identification and Development Program) with the NEPA process.

Using Errata Sheets for a Final EIS and Issuing a Combined Final EIS and Record of Decision

The Guidance incorporates, with some changes, many aspects of the Department of Transportation’s “Guidance on the Use of Combined Final Environmental Impact Statements/Records of Decision and Errata Sheets in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews” (Apr. 25, 2019).

Applicability of Section 139 and Guidance to NEPA Assignment States

The Guidance states that Section 139 applies to projects for which a state has assumed the Department of Transportation’s responsibilities under NEPA and other environmental laws pursuant to the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program under 23 U.S.C. § 327. The Guidance is silent on whether Section 139 applies to projects covered by the more limited categorical exclusion assignment program under 23 U.S.C. § 326. As to the applicability of the Guidance itself to NEPA assignment projects, the Guidance suggests that states participating in the NEPA assignment program “should coordinate with FHWA, FRA, or FTA, as appropriate, regarding the applicability of this guidance.”

Process Charts

The Guidance includes, as Appendix H, two detailed charts depicting a “recommended best practice timeline” for completing the NEPA and permitting processes for EAs and major project EISs. These charts depict how other state and federal agencies’ permitting processes can be coordinated to achieve the timeframes required by NEPA and Section 139.

Next Steps

As an interim final guidance, the Guidance is effective immediately while the Agencies solicit public comments. The deadline to provide comments on the Guidance is February 18, 2025. The Agencies will then make any changes they determine to be appropriate and will issue a final guidance. Notably, this work will occur during the incoming Trump administration, and the final guidance may reflect the priorities of the Agencies’ new leadership.

© 2010-2024 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more on Federal Surface Transportation Agencies, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources and Utilities Transport sections.

Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Public Health Impacts of PFAS Exposures

On December 5, 2024, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight held a hearing on “Examining the Public Health Impacts of PFAS Exposures.” The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses (written testimony is not available at this time):

  • Laurel Schaider, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Chemistry and Engineering, Silent Spring Institute;
  • Sue Fenton, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Human Health and the Environment, Professor of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University; and
  • Michael D. Larrañaga, Ph.D., P.E., President and Managing Principal, R.E.M. Risk Consultants, on behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

Schaider testified that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy to address all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including fluorinated polymers, as a class. Schaider described how the manufacture of PFAS can expose workers and nearby communities to PFAS and how the disposal of products that contain PFAS can contaminate the environment. Fenton offered a number of suggestions for possible legislation, including: limiting the production and use of PFAS; requiring health insurance companies to pay for PFAS testing in susceptible populations; phasing out PFAS in firefighting foams (FFF); requiring manufacturers to provide standards in purified forms of their PFAS; and requiring PFAS manufacturers to fund the development of safe destruction methods for PFAS. Larrañaga stated that PFAS are part of our critical infrastructure and are used in the manufacture of products such as semiconductors, electronics, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, insecticides, plastics, airplanes, automobiles, and buildings. Larrañaga urged that the use of PFAS be balanced against the risk of alternatives.

The hearing included discussion of the use of PFAS in consumer products, including non-stick pans and waterproof mascara, versus other products, such as cell phones and semiconductors. Schaider stated that the issue is not only non-essential uses of PFAS, as in cookware, but also the lifecycle of products that contain PFAS. There may be environmental contamination in communities where PFAS are manufactured, workers may be exposed during manufacture, and at the end of the lifecycle of the product, the PFAS could end up in a landfill or in emissions when incinerated.

During the hearing, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) asked whether all PFAS cause the same level of harm and noted the common definition of PFAS as “any compound containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” Larrañaga responded that although fluoropolymers contain one fully fluorinated carbon atom, they are less bioavailable than other PFAS of concern. There could be an issue if heating them, but by removing that use from the marketplace, instead of banning all PFAS, there would be no adverse effect to critical infrastructure or defense. Schaider stated that, to her knowledge, no PFAS is completely safe. According to Schaider, newer PFAS replacement chemicals raise many of the same health concerns. Schaider suggested that an essential uses framework could be used to identify where PFAS uses can be reduced immediately.

The hearing included discussion of the best way to move forward. Fenton noted that even for essential uses, there is potential exposure to the waste and that proper disposal is important. According to Fenton, labeling products with intentionally added PFAS would allow consumers to make more informed choices. Subcommittee Chair Jeff Merkley (D-OR) suggested that there may be product categories where labeling is more important because the contamination pathway is more significant. Merkley concluded that Congress should continue to explore how to reduce the risk of PFAS to citizens.

There is much discussion, seemingly everywhere, about PFAS, but no easy answers to the questions the Subcommittee considered. In a perfect world, PFAS would be comprehensively addressed as Schaider recommends, and all the unknowns about disposal, exposure, and toxicity would be known. But we do not live in that world, and many hard questions remain to be answered. The Subcommittee gets points for raising key issues, but did little to move the needle.

All eyes are now on the new kids in town — the incoming Trump Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator-Designate Lee Zeldin. We expect in 2025 a decidedly different focus on PFAS, but beyond this, much remains to be seen.

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more on the PFAS, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources section

22 States Join Challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3

  • Similar to California’s Proposition 12, Massachusetts’ Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (also known as “Question 3”) imposes animal welfare standards for hens, sows, and veal calves raised in Massachusetts and makes it unlawful for businesses to sell eggs, veal, or pork that they know to be in violation of these standards (even if the animals were raised out of state).
  • A July 22nd order from the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts dismissed a challenge to the law brought by various pork producers, holding that the law was not preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) because it does not regulate how slaughterhouses operate. This decision has been appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Last month the pork producers’ appeal was joined by Iowa (the top pork-producing state) as well as 21 other states. The states’ brief argues that the law will increase costs for pork producers (and prices for consumers) and that such state laws, if upheld, could create a regulatory maze of differing state requirements. We note that such arguments were not foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s 2023 Proposition 12 decision (National Pork Producers Council v. Ross) which held that such laws violate the dormant commerce clause if the “burden imposed on interstate commerce” is “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Nevertheless, it’s not clear how such a fact-based argument can be evaluated on appeal. The states’ brief also latches onto Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and states that Question 3 “may also implicate other constitutional provisions like the Import-Export Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”
© 2024 Keller and Heckman LLP
For more on Farm Animals, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section.

A Guidebook to Lawsuits Over PFAS, or Forever Chemicals

Lawsuits over the effects of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become some of the most momentous legal battles since the Big Tobacco lawsuits. PFAS compounds, also known as “forever chemicals,” are used in so many different products that you are almost guaranteed to have one in your home. Since 2000, it has been discovered that these chemicals do not break down, have contaminated numerous water sources in America, that virtually everyone has been exposed to them, and that they carry serious health risks, including several types of cancer.

Already, PFAS manufacturers and other companies that use PFAS in the course of their daily business have paid over $11 billion in PFAS lawsuits, and that is just to mitigate the damage of PFAS exposure by cleaning up contaminated soils and waters. The lawsuits to compensate victims of PFAS exposure are just beginning, and may eclipse this massive total.

What are PFAS Chemicals?

PFAS chemicals are synthetic compounds that have multiple fluorine atoms attached to a chain of alkyl, which includes carbon atoms. There are thousands of different compounds that fall into the category of PFAS chemicals. Importantly, though, the fluorine-carbon bond that is present in all of them is one of the strongest in organic chemistry, with no natural processes for breaking it down. As a result, once a PFAS compound is created, it will continue to be a PFAS compound until something is done to it to break down its chemical structure, like superheating it when it is in water.

What are They Used For?

PFAS chemicals have been used by several major corporations for a variety of applications since they were first used to invent Teflon in 1938. Broadly speaking, PFAS chemicals are extremely useful at resisting, cleaning, or preventing:

  • Heat
  • Water
  • Stains
  • Grease
  • Oil

These broad applications, however, have meant that they have been used in a huge number of specific ways. For example, PFAS chemicals are included in the following products to resist water:

  • Paint
  • Clothing
  • Raincoats
  • Tents
  • Shoes
  • Personal care products, like mascara and sunscreen

As a heat resistant chemical, PFAS compounds are frequently used in:

  • Non-stick cookware
  • Electrical wire insulation
  • Firefighting foam
  • Building materials, including adhesives and insulation

As a stain resistant material, PFAS chemicals have been used in:

  • Carpeting
  • Stain-resistant clothing
  • Window curtains
  • Furniture and varnishing
  • Dental floss
  • Food packaging

PFAS chemicals have also been used as oil- and grease-resistant products, like:

  • Lubricants
  • Hydraulic fluids
  • Pizza boxes and microwave popcorn bags

The practical effect of all of this is that PFAS chemicals are everywhere. There are very few days that you do not interact with one. Worse, because the chemical structure of PFAS compounds do not break down, when they are used or discarded they can contaminate the area around them.

What Have PFAS Chemicals Contaminated?

Virtually everything.

In the early days after PFAS chemicals started to get used for a variety of consumer products, the public and the companies behind the compounds disposed of them with no regard or understanding for the dangers that they were causing.

That lack of understanding by the corporations behind PFAS chemicals, however, began to disintegrate in the 1970s. It was around then that 3M, one of the leading PFAS manufacturing companies, discovered its PFAS chemicals inside fish in local waterways.

Rather than sound the alarm, though, 3M and its competitors continued to dispose of used or unwanted PFAS materials in whatever means they wanted or were most convenient at the time. They burned them, buried them, or dumped them into the water. Some PFAS manufacturers even developed a new firefighting foam, aqueous film forming foams (AFFFs), that relied heavily on PFAS chemicals to put out fires involving airplane jet fuel. Firefighters used this PFAS containing firefighting foam on actual fires at airports and trained with it on controlled fires at airports across the country.

The PFAS chemicals in the foam leeched into the soil and waterways near these airports for decades.

The problem was not discovered, at least not by regulators from the federal government, until 1998. That was when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) learned of an internal study by 3M. In that study, researchers exposed pregnant rats to PFAS materials. Inevitably, the newborn rats died within a few days. Alarmed by the news, the EPA began to investigate in an effort to regulate PFAS.

It was also at this time that a cattle farmer in West Virginia lost his animals to a mysterious health condition. Suspecting that the culprit was a major chemical plant upriver that was owned by PFAS manufacturer DuPont, the farmer sued. Over the next couple of years, the PFAS litigation expanded into a class action of over 3,500 plaintiffs and multiple water districts in the West Virginia region. A temporary settlement was reached in which DuPont would provide $30 million of funding for an independent health and environmental study to address PFAS contamination in the soil and water, the C8 Science Panel.

The findings of this Panel and subsequent studies were dire: There was PFAS contamination virtually everywhere. It was in the soil. It was in the water. It was in the animals that ate plants from the soil and that drank the water. Fish from contaminated waterways had especially high levels of PFAS chemicals in them. And PFAS chemicals were in human beings.

Who Has Been Exposed to Them?

According to one study, 95 percent of Americans had a detectable amount of PFAS chemicals in their blood.

Anyone who is exposed to PFAS chemicals has a risk of ingesting it or it getting into their body some other way – PFAS chemicals are readily absorbed through the skin, and can even get inside your body through your tear ducts. The most common way for your PFAS exposure to become PFAS contamination are:

  • Eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water
  • Touching anything with PFAS chemicals in it, including clothing and soil
  • Inhaling contaminated dust or air
  • Swallowing anything that has PFAS chemicals in it, like makeup or lipstick
  • Being in contaminated air, which can get into your body through your skin pores and sweat

This means different people are at higher risk of PFAS exposure and contamination than others.

For example, people who live in or near communities that have PFAS industries that emit the chemical into the air are likely to get exposed to the dangerous chemical every single day. Firefighters who use or train with PFAS-heavy AFFF are likely to get severe exposure to the chemical whenever they use the foam, but especially when they use it on a real fire, which burns the chemical and releases it into the air where it is more easily inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

Once they are in your body, PFAS chemicals work their way into your bloodstream. Once there, they pass through your body as your blood circulates. This takes them through all of the organs that handle your blood, including your kidneys and liver. While these organs are responsible for breaking down toxins in your blood, they cannot handle PFAS chemicals. Unless PFAS chemicals are excreted somehow, they will continue to pass through your organs, causing harm to them each time they go by.

Excreting PFAS chemicals seems to be difficult. Studies have found that many people do not excrete PFAS chemicals in their urine very well, though others can do it better. These variations in excretion mean that similar people with similar exposures to PFAS chemicals may have different levels of contamination.

Aside from urinating, the only ways to get PFAS chemicals out of your body are to bleed out contaminated blood and to breastfeed, though breastfeeding just gives the contamination to the newborn child who drinks the milk.

What Health Risks Come With PFAS Contamination?

It is important to know that there is still a lot that researchers have to learn about the health conditions caused by PFAS contamination. Collecting more data may connect new health conditions to high levels of exposure to the chemical, or may even undermine what we think we know at this point.

Right now, though, medical research has found that exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals and high levels of PFAS contamination are associated with higher risks of:

  • Liver damage and cancer
  • Kidney cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Testicular cancer
  • Thyroid Disease
  • Fertility problems
  • Pregnancy issues, including:
    • Fetal death
    • Low birth weight
    • Developmental delays in newborns
    • Preeclampsia
    • Hypertension
  • Obesity
  • Hormonal disruption and irregularities
  • Dysfunction in the immune system
  • High cholesterol

Some of these conditions are debilitating. Others may prove to be fatal.

Have There Been Any Settlements?

At this point, the only lawsuits that have been settled by PFAS manufacturers have been those brought by public municipalities and water districts. These class actions and multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases demanded compensation from these companies for the costs of decontaminating soil and upgrading water filtration system to eliminate PFAS from the drinking water.

Already, though, these lawsuits have recovered over $11 billion in settlements.

The first settlement is probably the most telling. This was the West Virginia case that led to the creation of the C8 Science Panel. In 2005, the Panel was created as a part of a temporary settlement that also required DuPont and its spin-off company, Chemours, to pay $71 million and cover the costs of fixing local water treatment facilities.

After the C8 Science Panel began publishing its findings, though, DuPont and Chemours reached a final settlement agreement of $671 million.

Both the settlement and the Panel’s findings led to numerous other studies, as well as to lawsuits by water districts against PFAS manufacturers.

The biggest of these has proven to be the MDL consisting of claims of over 300 water municipalities against the company 3M. This one nearly went to a bellwether trial, settling at the last moment in June, 2023, for between $10.3 billion and $12.5 billion, with the final amount depending on the amount of PFAS contamination that is found in the water. A similar lawsuit against DuPont and its subsidiaries and spin-offs settled soon thereafter for $1.185 billion. More recently, the MDL against Tyco Fire Products, one of the companies behind the firefighting foam AFFF, settled in April, 2024, for $750 million, and the one against BASF settled in May for $316.5 million.

What About Mass Tort Claims?

These massive settlements, totaling over $11 billion, are just to cover the costs of cleaning up the soil and water of the plaintiff municipalities. We have not even begun to recover compensation for the individual victims who have suffered the healthcare issues connected to PFAS exposure and contamination.

Several of these cases are ongoing, though.

Some are being pursued by small groups of plaintiffs against smaller PFAS businesses, like this Connecticut community that is suing a local paper company for contaminating local waterways with PFAS chemicals.

Many more, however, have been consolidated into an MDL in South Carolina. As of July, 2024, it had more than 9,000 claims in it. This MDL, though, is strictly concerned with PFAS exposure from AFFF firefighting foam. However, it does include individual plaintiffs who have suffered actual harm from PFAS exposure, rather than public municipalities. These individual plaintiffs are demanding compensation for their adverse health conditions, medical monitoring, and even for the costs of cleaning up contaminated private property or for the reduction in property values caused by the contamination.

According to PFAS mass tort lawyer Dr. Nick Oberheiden, founding partner of the national law firm Oberheiden P.C., “It seems safe to say that these individual claims for compensation related to PFAS exposure and contamination are going to continue to get filed for decades into the future. One likely outcome is that an MDL will form for non-AFFF specific claims related to medical conditions and property value loss due to PFAS contamination. Victims who have been exposed to PFAS chemicals could then join the MDL and benefit from the expedited process that it entails. If PFAS manufacturers and defendants go bankrupt, we will likely see a trust fund being created, similar to how asbestos manufacturers handled the thousands of cases against them.”

Oberheiden P.C. © 2024
by: Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.
For more news on PFAS Litigation, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy, & Resources section

Mass. Appeals Court Declares Winner in Longstanding Land-Use Dispute Between Northeastern University and Town of Nahant

The Nahant Preservation Trust, the town of Nahant, and certain Nahant residents have suffered another loss in their years-long legal battle to stop Northeastern University from expanding its Marine Science Center, located on East Point in Nahant. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently affirmed the dismissal of the legal actions, finding that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of proving that Northeastern dedicated the 12 acres of land at issue to the public for use as an ecological preserve.

The dispute – and the Appeals Court decision – required an analysis of the “public dedication doctrine” to determine whether the land was subject to Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. Art. 97 provides, in part, that property “taken or acquired” for conservation purposes “shall not be used for other purposes” without approval by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the state legislature. In Nahant Preservation Trust v. Northeastern University (pdf), the Appeals Court concluded that the land at issue is not subject to Art. 97.

Land is dedicated to a public purpose when the landowner’s intent to do so is clear and unequivocal, and when the public accepts the dedication by actually using the land for the public purpose. In 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), in Smith v. City of Westfield, expanded the reach of Art. 97 by concluding that municipal parkland may be protected even if not officially taken or acquired, as long as it was “designated” for an Art. 97 purpose.

The Nahant dispute arose when Northeastern announced plans to expand its Marine Science Center located on a peninsula known as East Point. The plaintiffs contended that Northeastern had permanently dedicated the 12 undeveloped acres of its land to the public for use as an ecological preserve and for passive recreation. Therefore, they argued, the land was subject to Art. 97 and the project could not proceed without legislative approval. The plaintiffs compiled and presented to the superior court judge a substantial record, including historical documents concerning Northeastern’s acquisition of the land, which had been used for military purposes by the United States Army and Navy in the 1940s and 1050s. The evidence also included documents that reflected the Town of Nahant’s decision in 1964 not to acquire the property, despite the conservation commission’s desire to have at least a scenic pathway along the shoreline of the property.

Although the summary judgment record contained conflicting evidence regarding the extent of public access and use of Northeastern’s property by town residents, the courts accepted that some town residents had used the area for general recreation over the years. There was evidence that Northeastern had permitted some recreational use of the land. The Appeals Court noted in its decision, however, that the plaintiffs must prove that the disputed land was actually dedicated to the public.

In rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments, the Appeals Court stated that the public dedication doctrine requires a property owner’s acts and declarations to be “deliberate, unequivocal and decisive, manifesting a clear intention permanently to abandon his property to the specific public use.” The Court noted that the SJC’s finding in Smith that there had been a dedication was based on an acceptance of Federal funds to rehabilitate a playground with the proviso that the city was surrendering its ability to convert the playground to a use other than public outdoor recreation.

The Appeals Court parsed the evidence on which the plaintiffs relied to demonstrate that Northeastern had “clearly and unequivocally” intended to dedicate the disputed land to the public. The plaintiffs pointed to the public’s use of the land as evidence of Northeastern’s intent to dedicate the property. Citing precedent from 1873 to Smith, the Appeals Court stated that “public use, alone, is not enough to prove a public dedication, particularly in circumstances like those present [in Nahant].”

Based on its review of the extensive summary judgment record, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the Appeals Court concluded that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of proving that Northeastern dedicated the 12 acres at issue to the public for use as an ecological preserve. It appears that Northeastern may finally proceed with its plans announced in 2018 to build a new research facility at its Marine Science Center in Nahant.

©2024 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

by: Michelle N. O’Brien of Pierce Atwood LLP

For more news on Environmental Land Dedication Disputes , visit the NLR Environmental, Energy, & Resources section.

White House OSTP Releases PFAS Federal R&D Strategic Plan

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced on September 3, 2024, the release of its Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Federal Research and Development Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). Prepared by the Joint Subcommittee on Environment, Innovation, and Public Health PFAS Strategy Team (PFAS ST) of the National Science and Technology Council, the Strategic Plan provides a federal strategy and implementation plan for addressing the strategic areas identified in the 2023 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (PFAS Report). The Strategic Plan is intended to be a companion document to the PFAS Report. The activities described in the Strategic Plan are reviewed through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) annual budget process and subject to available resources.

Background

As reported in our March 16, 2023, blog item, the PFAS Report provides an analysis of the state of the science of PFAS and information that will be used to direct the development of a federal strategic plan. The PFAS Report focuses on the current science of PFAS as a chemical class, identifies scientific consensus, and portrays uncertainties in the scientific information where consensus is still sought. The PFAS Report identifies four key strategic areas that, when addressed, will generate actionable information to address PFAS: removal, destruction, or degradation of PFAS; safer and environmentally friendlier alternatives; sources and pathways of exposure to PFAS; and toxicity of PFAS. The gaps and opportunities identified in the PFAS Report were used to develop the Strategic Plan.

Strategic Plan

Based on the four strategic areas presented in the 2023 PFAS Report, the PFAS ST identified four strategic goals that will drive federal research and development (R&D) efforts regarding PFAS:

  • Provide relevant, high-quality scientific data that increase the understanding of PFAS exposure pathways to inform federal decisions that reduce risks to human health and the environment;
  • Effectively and equitably communicate federal work and results regarding PFAS R&D through engagement with impacted communities and federal, Tribal, state, and local agencies;
  • Identify research and technologies to address PFAS contamination and mitigate the adverse impacts on communities; and
  • Generate information that facilitates informed procurement decisions by federal agencies, manufacturers, and consumers regarding products that contain or use PFAS and PFAS alternatives to reduce adverse human health and environmental effects.

According to the Strategic Plan, the PFAS ST identified five R&D strategies within the strategic research areas that address the identified knowledge gaps. The R&D strategies and select tasks to achieve the objectives within each strategy include:

  • Understand PFAS exposure pathways to individuals and communities:
    • Further characterize potential PFAS exposures in the built environment, including schools, workplaces, and other indoor/household environments. According to the Strategic Plan, this would include the co-occurrence and use of consumer products and understanding the lifecycle of products with regard to PFAS exposure;
    • Initiate studies regarding PFAS co-exposure and potential interactions with other contaminants (including other PFAS) in environmental samples, such as nano- and microplastics, petroleum constituents, metals, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals;
    • Initiate and continue studies of the physical-chemical properties of PFAS and mixtures of PFAS;
    • Investigate additional pathways and routes of exposure, such as direct contact, dermal absorption, oral ingestion, and inhalation from indoor and outdoor environments (residential, consumer, and occupational exposures); and
    • Develop and support studies of PFAS exposures in indoor environments through collection of dust, air, consumer products, and other media where biomonitoring may also be conducted;
  • Address current PFAS measurement challenges through the development of standards, advanced sampling, and analytical methodologies:
    • Develop and refine analytical methods and data collection methods to evaluate PFAS content, migration, and emissions from consumer, commercial, and industrial products, and their impact on workplace and indoor environments;
    • Develop testing programs and methods related to quantifying PFAS content, migration, and emissions in animal/livestock feed, food and food packaging, indoor exposure (dust, home/office materials), workplace settings, and consumer products; and
    • Develop and validate real-time, rapid, and remote PFAS screening methods using analytical sensors, PFAS proxies, passive sampling devices, and other novel technologies for the detection of PFAS in media;
  • Understand the toxicological mechanisms, human and environmental health effects, and risks of PFAS exposure:
    • Develop scientifically supported classification schemes for PFAS with respect to adverse impacts on human health and the environment;
    • Develop and support research regarding the human toxicity and ecotoxicity testing of PFAS as mixtures with PFAS and other co-occurring chemicals;
    • Support research to understand further the mechanism of action of PFAS toxicity, advance development of adverse outcome pathways, and understand the impact of PFAS mixture toxicities when evaluating cumulative health effects;
    • Develop and support epidemiological studies designed to identify communities near significant sources of PFAS contamination that may have environmental justice concerns, including occupationally exposed populations and populations, communities, and/or lifestages that are more susceptible to PFAS exposure or adverse health outcomes;
    • Explore the development of a federal data-sharing strategy to use interagency toxicological and epidemiological data to determine human health endpoints of concern from PFAS exposure; and
    • Develop classification strategies that enable grouping of PFAS by hazard identification, exposure assessment, and dose-response studies in support of risk assessments;
  • Develop, evaluate, and demonstrate technologies for the removal, destruction, and disposal of PFAS:
    • Continue to support the foundational research that advances technologies for the destruction of PFAS by both thermal and non-thermal approaches;
    • Support the implementation of removal and destruction technologies that apply to discharge and releases at the point of manufacturing; and
    • Develop and implement models to evaluate technology performance, short-term and long-term costs, energy demands, scalability, and the composition of treated materials that are released to the environment;
  • Identify PFAS alternatives and evaluate their human health and environmental effects:
    • Engage with academic and private sector industrial researchers to support the development of novel, less toxic alternative chemistries and processes for sustainable PFAS alternatives;
    • Identify and evaluate critical and essential uses of PFAS within individual agencies and sectors;
    • Develop an interagency-aligned evaluation framework for prioritizing research on specific PFAS alternatives that includes considerations regarding sustainability; performance; viability and timeframe to transition; dependency on foreign sources of materials; criticality of the current product to national security, critical infrastructure, climate change mitigation, and public health; and criticality of the need for a replacement product or process;
    • Support research to advance sustainable manufacturing and circularity of PFAS-based processes and products to preserve current critical and essential uses, which will enable an orderly transition to PFAS alternatives in critical manufacturing sectors that are dependent on PFAS;
    • Develop a database of the current commercial inventory of alternative materials and products with relevant chemical and toxicological information, manufacturer production capacity, and performance comparison of the alternatives to PFAS-containing materials and products; and
    • Continue to assess human health and environmental effects posed by alternative materials and products for use in comparison to other product formulations, including PFAS-containing product formulations.

Commentary

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) acknowledges that OSTP’s PFAS Strategy may benefit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory activities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and other initiatives. We provide below representative examples of these activities.

Between 2022 and 2024, EPA issued TSCA Section 4 test orders requiring manufacturers and/or processors to perform various studies on four PFAS (i.e., 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonamide betaine [6:2 FTSB], trifluoro(trifluoromethyl)oxirane [HFPO], 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-heptafluoropropoxy) propanoyl fluoride [HFPO-DAF], and 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-Heptadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyloctane-1-sulfonamide [NMeFOSE]).

EPA also intends on initiating ten additional TSCA Section 4 test orders per year on PFAS between fiscal year (FY) 2024 and FY 2026 (i.e., October 1, 2024-September 30, 2027). EPA’s activities under TSCA Section 4 may lead to the development of data that provide a better understanding of the human health and environmental effects of specific types of PFAS.

The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) rule on the reporting and recordkeeping of manufacture and import of PFAS will provide additional information on PFAS uses, production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards. In addition, EPA’s publication of its updated PFAS category analysis may help frame how to use data on PFAS for which testing has been (or is in the process of being) completed to fill data gaps on related PFAS.

Further, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Land Use and Emergency Management (OLEM) have made significant contributions on analytical methods for detecting PFAS in various media and guidance for destroying and disposing of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials, respectively. The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) information along with EPA’s advancements with identifying PFAS in environmental media may aid with identifying those PFAS and the associated uses that lead to the greatest environmental releases.

Collectively, EPA’s activities on PFAS will advance the objectives of OSTP’s PFAS Strategy. This information may also aid with differentiating the types of PFAS that present the greatest concerns to human health and the environment versus those chemistries that do not. After all, many chemical substances, including pharmaceuticals and pesticides, meet one or more of the existing definitions for PFAS and have clear public health benefits, yet do not present the same concerns as those PFAS that have significant concerns (e.g., perfluorooctanoic acid).

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more news on PFAS Federal R&D Strategic Plans, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources section.

Massachusetts SJC Rules in Favor of Insureds for Ambiguous Insurance Policy Term

In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (and a consolidated case[1]) (Docket No. SJC-13535), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of insureds in a dispute over an ambiguous term in two policies insuring Norwood Hospital in Norwood, Massachusetts. A severe storm with heavy rain caused damage to the hospital basement and to the hospital’s main buildings caused by seepage through the courtyard roof and parapet roof. The owner of the Hospital, Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (“MPT”) and the tenant, Steward Health Care System LLC[2] (“Steward”), both had insurance policies for the Hospital, MPT’s coverage being through Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), and Steward’s through American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company & another (“AGLIC”). Both policies had coverage of up to $750 and $850 million but lower coverage limits for damage to the Hospital for “Flood” at $100 and $150 million (“Flood Sublimits”). Both Steward and MPT submitted proof of loss claims to their respective insurers that exceeded $200 million; the insurers responded that damage to the hospital was caused by “Flood”, which limits both MPT and Steward to their respective Flood Sublimits. The policy provision “Flood” is defined as “a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas or structures caused by…the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters, waves, tides, tidal waves, tsunami, the release of water, the rising, overflowing or breaking of boundaries of nature or man-made bodies of water.”

The insurers, and MPT and Steward had differing opinions on the definition of “surface waters.” Litigation commenced to determine the extent of coverage available to MPT and Steward for damage to the hospital. The parties agreed that the damage to the basement was caused by Flood, and therefore subject to the Flood Sublimits. However, the parties disagreed as to whether the damage caused by rain seeping in through the courtyard roof and parapet roof was caused by “Flood” because of ambiguity in the definition of Flood. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the term “surface waters” in both policies’ definition of “Flood” included rainwater accumulating on the rooftop. The judge allowed an interlocutory appeal due to the substantial difference in opinion of the term “surface water” under the definition of “Flood.” The Court noted that case law across the country is divided on this issue. MPT and Steward appealed, and the First Circuit certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), “Whether rainwater that lands and accumulates on either (i) a building’s second-floor outdoor rooftop courtyard or (ii) a building’s parapet roof and that subsequently inundates the interior of the building unambiguously constitutes ‘surface waters’ under Massachusetts law for the purposed of the insurance policies at issue?”

The SJC concluded that the meaning of “surface waters” and the definition of “Flood” under the policies are ambiguous in regard to the accumulation of rainwaters on roofs, finding that ambiguity is not the party’s disagreement of a term’s meaning but rather where it is susceptible of more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one. The SJC noted there is no consistent interpretation in case law for “surface waters” to include rainwater accumulating on a roof. Reasoning that if the policy language is ambiguous as to its intended meaning, then the meaning must be resolved against the insurers that drafted the terms, as they had the opportunity to add more precise terms to the policy and did not do so.

This case is an example of the importance for all parties to closely review the language of their insurance coverage to ensure that coverage is consistent with their lease obligations. Additionally, this dispute also draws attention to the importance of casualty provisions in leases. It is important to negotiate the burden of costs in the event of caps or insufficient insurance, along with termination rights for each party.

[1] Steward Health Care System LLC vs. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company & another.

[2] Apart from this litigation, the future of Norwood Hospital as a hospital is uncertain as it has not been open for four years and Steward Health Care System LLC has filed for bankruptcy protection.

© 2024 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
For more news on Massachusetts SJC Rulings, visit the NLR Real Estate section.

Workplace Safety Concerns for Florida Employers in Anticipation of Hurricane Helene

Tropical Storm Helene is projected to hit Florida’s Gulf Coast as a major hurricane later this week, and evacuations are already underway in parts of the state. Employers are likely to face inevitable workplace safety risks with the storm and recovery.

Quick Hits

  • Tropical Storm Helene is expected to make landfall in Florida as a major hurricane as early as September 26, 2024.
  • Governor Ron DeSantis has declared a state of emergency for sixty-one counties across the state.
  • Employers may want to consider their obligations to protect workers and maintain a safe workplace and begin preparations for the hurricane response.

After developing over the Caribbean, Tropical Storm Helene is expected to “rapidly intensify” into a “major hurricane” as it moves over the Gulf of Mexico before making landfall on Florida as early as Thursday, September 26, according to the National Hurricane Center.

On Monday, September 23, Governor Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency for forty-one counties in Florida. A day later, on September 24, the governor issued a new executive order expanding the emergency order to most of Florida’s sixty-seven counties.

By the time the the storm the storm makes landfall, it is expected to have intensified into at least a Category 3 hurricane, which can bring winds of up to 130 mph and can cause storm surges greater than ten feet. The storm is projected to affect the entire Gulf Coast of Florida as it moves up through the Florida panhandle and into the Southeastern United States.

In total, sixty-one Florida counties are under a state of emergency: Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington counties.

Workplace Safety Compliance

The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standards require employers to take certain actions to ensure a safe and healthy workplace and make preparations for potential risks, including with regard to events like hurricanes and other natural disasters. Here are some key requirements:

  • General Duty Clause: The OSH Act requires that employers provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious harm, including preparing for and responding to hurricanes and their related hazards. Employers are further required to protect employees from anticipated hazards associated with the response and recovery efforts employees are expected to perform.
  • Emergency Action Plans (EAPs): Under OSHA standards, many employers must develop and implement EAPs, covering evacuation procedures, emergency contact information, and roles for employees during emergencies, such as hurricanes.
  • Training: Employers are also required to provide training with employees on emergency procedures, including evacuation and shelter-in-place protocols, to ensure they know what to do during a hurricane.
  • Hazard Communication: Employers must inform employees about potential hazards, such as chemical spills or structural damage, that could occur during or after a hurricane.
  • Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Employers may need to provide necessary PPE for employees involved in clean-up and recovery efforts following the hurricane.
  • Post-Event Safety: Employers may be required to conduct hazard assessments and ensure the workplace is safe before employees return to work after a hurricane.

Next Steps

Given the risks of the hurricane, employers may want to start preparing, if they have not already done so, to ensure the safety of their workplaces and their employees, including communicating emergency plans, and, in some cases, closing or evacuating workplaces entirely.

OSHA has provided more information and resources for employers on preparing for and responding to hurricanes on its website here.

Further, in addition to workplace safety concerns, employers have additional legal obligations or considerations with natural disasters that they may want to incorporate into their disaster management and response plans.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.\
For more news on Florida Workplace Safety, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources and Labor Employment sections.