Utilities Law - Transmission Towers photo
Alternative Dispute Resolution photo
Indianapolis Skyline

by

OSHA’s final rule revised or implemented eleven provisions in the Construction of Electrical Power Transmission Standard, 29 CFR 1926, subpart V, including provisions regarding: (1) host employers and contractors; (2) training; (3) job briefings; (4) fall protection; (5) insulation and working on or near live parts; (6) minimum approach distances; (7) protection from electric arcs; (8) deenergizing transmission and distribution lines and equipment; (9) protective grounding; (10) operating mechanical equipment near overhead power lines; and (11) working in manholes and vaults. OSHA also adopted a new construction standard on electrical protective equipment, 29 CFR 1926.97, and revised general industry and construction sections 29 CFR 1910.137 and 1910.269 mostly to incorporate the changed standards.

The host employers and contractors provision includes requirements for host employers and contract employers to exchange information on hazards and on the conditions, characteristics, design, and operation of the host employer’s installation. It also includes a requirement for host employers and contract employers to coordinate their work rules and procedures to protect all employees.
Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently interpreted a land developer’s contract with an Indiana town in Carroll Creek Development Company Inc. v. Town of Huntertown, 9 N.E.3d 702 (Ind. Ct. App 2014). The contract provided that the developers could recoup nearly five-hundred thousand dollars of their water main construction costs through connection charges levied against land owners in a defined “excess area” if the land owners chose to directly or indirectly connect to the water main within the subsequent fifteen years.
Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion explaining the difference between two common types of termination clauses in oils and gas leases. The first, known as a “drill or pay” clause, obliges the lessee to either commence production within a certain timeframe or pay advance royalties, but does not operate to automatically terminate the lease in the event of a breach. The second, called an “unless” clause, provides that the lease will automatically terminate if the conditions are not met.
Continue reading

by

It is often difficult to discern whether the employee’s conduct online-whether it be posting pictures, writing comments about the work environment or the employer, will constitute protected concerted activity. This determination will determine what actions, if any, an employer may take against an employee when s/he as posted online content, and more broadly, the cases which follow can allow an employer to craft legally permissible policies and handbooks.

No protected concerted activity:

For example, in Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., 358 NLRB 164 (2012), a BMW automobile dealership (the Respondent) discharged a sales representative for photos and comments that he posted to his Facebook page. The first post was about a sales event for a new model and included sarcastic comments about the quality of the food (hot dogs, chips, and bottled water) being served at a marketing event for a luxury automobile.

The second incident involved an accident at an adjacent dealership in which a customer’s 13-year old child was sitting in a vehicle’s driver’s seat when the vehicle accelerated over the customer’s foot and into a pond while the child was inside. The employee posted photos and comments mocking the incident on his Facebook page. A competitor told the Respondent about the posts and the employee was discharged. The Board determined that these comments and photos which led to his termination did not amount to protected and concerted activity under the Act.

Additionally, in Tasker Healthcare Group, d/b/a Skinsmart Dermatology, the employer discharged an employee for her Facebook posts regarding work. After discussing nonwork issues with a private group of 10 current and former coworkers, the employee turned to the conversation to work and wrote: “They [the employer] are full of s**t…They seem to be staying away from me, you know I don’t bite my [tongue] anymore, F***…FIRE ME…Make my day…”

The employer found about this posting the following day. It terminated her, stating that it was “obvious” she was no longer interested in working there and the employer was concerned about having the employee work with customers given her feelings about her job. The Board held that the employee did not engage in protected concerted activity and, therefore, the employer did not violate the Act when it terminated her employment. Although the postings referenced her work situation, her comments amounted to nothing more than individual griping rather than any shared concerns about working conditions.
Continue reading

by

On March 3, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals clarified that shareholders cannot be held personally liable for attorney fees in a wrongful stop payment of a check under Indiana Code section 26–2–7–5 unless the corporate veil can be pierced. CBR Event Decorators, Inc. v. Gates, 4 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In CBR I, the court held that the corporate veil could not be pierced in this case, but created some confusion in dicta about whether the shareholders were still liable for attorney fees. 962 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The court clarified in CBR II that the shareholders are not personally liable absent successful piercing of the veil, or in cases where the shareholders have otherwise been found personally liable for the wrongful stop payment.

Jeremy Fetty is a partner in the law firm of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse with offices in Lebanon and Indianapolis. He often advises businesses and utilities (for profit, non-profit and cooperative) on organizational, human resources, and transactional matters and drafts and reviews commercial contracts.

The statements contained herein are matters of opinion and general information only and are not to be considered legal advice and should not be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact an attorney.

Continue reading

by

In January, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals found that failure to supply an accurate map of underground facilities may bar negligence suits against contractors who properly file an intent to excavate with the Indiana Underground Plant Protection Service in compliance with the Indiana Damage to Underground Facilities Act (DUFA). City of Fort Wayne v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, 2 N.E.3d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If the contractor files the intent to excavate and obtains defective “locates” from the operator of the underground facility, then the contractor has a defense to damages claims under Indiana Code § 8-1-26-22(c).
Continue reading

by

HEA 1423 was signed into law on March 27, 2014 and it makes two important changes.

1) The new law expands the temporary discount program for companies hiring in Indiana by:

  • reducing the threshold for utility discount applications from a maximum demand of at least ten megawatts to five megawatts
  • opening the discount to prospective employers, who may be considering locating a new facility in Indiana. (Previously, the discount was available only to existing employers expanding operations.)

Continue reading

by

In a March 2014 decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals found an individual complied with Indiana’s statutory notice requirements to properly obtain a tax deed by sending notices by certified mail1, even though signature upon delivery was not requested, return receipt was not requested, and there was no evidence that delivery of the notice was tracked or verified. Gupta v. Busan, No. 87A01-1307-MI-340, 2014 WL 880697, at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. March 6, 2014). The Court also determined that the notice provided had been reasonably calculated to inform the property owner of the tax sale and petition for tax deed. Id.
Continue reading

by

Despite efforts to provide a safer work place on the farm, history has shown that agricultural activities are still among the most dangerous in terms of job-related injuries. Indiana law requires most employers to provide worker’s compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of employees. That insurance pays for necessary medical care, lost wages, and permanent impairment from injuries arising out of the employment. It also pays the employer’s costs of investigating and defending the worker’s comp claim, which itself can be expensive.

Disputes often arise as to the nature and extent of an employee’s claimed injury, its cause and whether it actually arose out of the employment. Those issues can be thorny, but this article focuses on whether farm or agricultural employers should have worker’s comp coverage.
Continue reading

by

An Indiana appellate court has recently upheld the judgment of a trial court, holding that a sewer lien could not be enforced by selling a property at a tax sale when that lien was the only lien that existed on the property.

In In re: Carroll County 2012 Tax Sale, 993 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), a regional sewer district (“SD”) serviced an area within which the property owners (“Owners”) possessed property. When the Owners did not pay their sewer bills on time, SD perfected a lien against the property and certified those liens to the county auditor and treasurer for collection with the property tax bill. The auditor and treasurer then applied for a judgment and order of sale for the property in the trial court due to satisfy unpaid property taxes and special assessments (the sewer bills). Soon after, the Owners paid the outstanding property taxes, leaving the only lien on the property to be the sewer lien.
Continue reading

Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers Top 50
The Best Lawyers in America
Best Lawyers
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
LexisNexis
Best Lawyers badge of Tony Patterson. Lawyer of the year. 2024
Best Lawyers badge of Tony Patterson. Lawyer of the year. 2020
The National Trial Lawyers
Contact Information
Indianapolis, IN
Capital Center North
251 North Illinois Street
Suite 1800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.269.2500 Fax: 317.269.2514 Toll Free: 888.337.7766
Lebanon, IN
225 West Main Street
PO Box 668
Lebanon, IN 46052
Phones: 765.482.0110 317.269.2509 Fax: 765.483.3444 Toll Free: 888.532.7766
Chicago, IL
One East Wacker Drive
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312.724.8280 Fax: 773.960.8600

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design