| Moser Construction Company Inc., Issue No. 1 |
August 2002
|
The Contractors Critic
Moser construction company, inc. Reporting on Safety, Productivity, and Honesty in the Construction Industry.
|
Osha Citations, Liens & Lawsuits
|
OSHA ISSUES SIX SERIOUS AND WILLFUL CITATIONS AGAINST MOSER
CONSTRUCTION – PROPOSES MASSIVE FINE FOR SCAFFOLDING VIOLATIONS
| January 9, 2002 was
probably just another windy, frigid, snowy day in North Olmsted, Ohio. Too
rotten a day to work, unless you were an employee of Moser Construction. Not
only that, you might have been suspended high above the ground in a scaffold.
You would have moved carefully at those gut-wrenching heights. Meanwhile, the
poorly constructed scaffolding that held you up probably swayed in the strong
winds, risking your life and the lives of the seven other workers exposed to the
severe threat of a brutal death caused by a fall from the undulating scaffold.
Fortunately, someone had the opportunity to phone in a complaint to OSHA, who
inspected the site. OSHA rescued the workers and caught Moser Construction
red-handed in the middle of six serious and willful violations of the
scaffolding regulations, including Section 1926.451(f)(12), which prohibits
working from a scaffold "during storms or high winds" unless, "employees are
protected by a personal fall arrest system..." These were only the latest in a
ten year unbroken history of Moser Construction flouting the OSHA scaffolding
rules.
This time, OSHA issued citations against Moser Construction for other serious
violations of the scaffolding rules regarding training of workers on scaffolds
and regulations governing construction of scaffolds. For the willful violation
of Section 1926.451, OSHA proposed the staggering fine of $56,000 plus another
$7,800 for the other serious violations – for a total proposed fine of $63,800.
(Inspection # 304487739)
Moser Construction should have known better. Only fourteen months earlier, in
August 2000, OSHA had caught Moser Construction in another six serious
violations, including at least four violations of the scaffolding rules! That
OSHA inspection took place at a Medina, Ohio job site of Moser’s and in that
instance OSHA proposed another $5,175 in fines, along with the six serious
violations. (Inspection # 303484026)
OSHA records show that Moser Construction was caught in yet another violation
of the scaffolding rules, only three years before, also in Medina. At that time,
OSHA proposed two serious and an "other" violation, and assessed a $2,550 fine.
(Inspection # 300108610)
And the list goes on and on. Moser Construction was cited for violations of
scaffolding rules in 1996 and fined $675 (Inspection # 103012431). In 1995, OSHA
cited Moser Construction for serious violations of scaffolding rules and
proposed $2,400 in fines (Inspection # 121935712). In 1992 and 1993, Moser was
cited for another four serious and repeated violations of scaffolding rules and
was assessed $6,350 in fines (Inspection #’s 108833773, 108829573, 108831918).
In other words, OSHA records reveal that Moser Construction has a ten-year
history of ignoring scaffolding rules and of exposing its employees, year after
year, to life-threatening job site dangers. Regardless of OSHA’s fines and
citations, Moser Construction’s scaffolding violations have continued and been
repeated, over and over.
Falls are the leading cause of construction job site deaths. How long will it
be until someone falls and dies from one of Moser Construction’s illegal
scaffolding operations? Given Moser’s ten year history of violating scaffolding
laws, if a hapless worker is killed during Moser’s next violation of scaffolding
rules, would that be second degree murder?
|
MOSER CONSTRUCTION FILES OVER $1 MILLION IN LIENS AND MONEY
CLAIMS AGAINST ITS OWN CUSTOMERS
Liens are an unnecessary evil in the construction industry.
Many Construction customers know how maddening it is to try and obtain bank
financing where there is some claim or lien, no matter how frivolous, against
your property. That is why it is important for construction customers to be
concerned about whether a contractor is likely to file liens against its
customers, rather than negotiate a solution. A lien against your property by a
contractor is as effective as a claim against your equity as a bank’s mortgage,
according to the Engineering News-Record (June 26, 2000. P. 123). In
Ohio, Moser has also filed claims against the funds of its public agency
clients.
|
These liens were found in three counties. LASER will be
searching other counties. |
| Client with Lien/Property Owner |
Amount |
| Ronald L. Marhofer |
$ 5,272.39 |
| Keating Ohio Development
Company, Inc. |
$ 130,582.58 |
| Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. |
$ 118,860.71 |
| City of Akron |
$ 6,258.25 |
| Valley High Property |
$ 18,924.40 |
| Medina City Schools |
$ 639,678.78 & $ 124,146.36 |
|
Total Dollar Amount of Listed Liens Filed by Moser:
$ 1,043,722 |
| Lien Holder |
Amount |
| R & S Plumbing |
$ 2,900 |
Nonetheless, Moser Construction has filed liens or issued claims against the
funds of (and sued) many of its own construction customers. Here is a partial
list of customers and fellow contractors who have been liened by Moser
Construction:
Before a reader feels sympathy for Moser Construction, thinking that Moser
was forced to take legal action because an ungrateful customer stiffed them,
please be aware that there are frequently two sides to these lien stories.
Specifically, sometimes a customer had good reasons to decline to pay their
construction company the full amount demanded. Perhaps the construction company
went over budget or provided faulty work. Consider the case of Moser
Construction V Westra Construction, for instance.
| | | | | |
