After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims
June 09, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016).
Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics
April 20, 2017 —
Gareth Allan & Katsuyo Kuwako - BloombergTokyo’s skyline is set to welcome 45 new skyscrapers by the time city hosts the Olympics in 2020, as a surge of buildings planned in the early years of Abenomics near completion.
Japan’s capital will see nearly 50 percent more new high-rise space in the next three years than it did in the preceding three, Toyokazu Imazeki, chief analyst at office leasing and consulting firm Sanko Estate Co Ltd., said in an interview. He said the increase was fueled by the fiscal expansion and monetary easing under Abe’s economic program, launched after his election in late 2012.
“This marks the timing for completion of buildings planned from about 2013 when developers were expecting the economy to expand,” said Imazeki. The increase in building was supported not only by Abe’s expansionary policies but also Japan’s ultra-low interest rates, he said.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gareth Allan, Bloomberg and
Katsuyo Kuwako, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas
April 22, 2024 —
Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute ResolverMany employment laws use the concept of joint employer to make more than one business entity responsible for complying with employment law obligations towards employees who to varying degrees work for, or under the direction of entities who are not technically the employees primary employer. Nowhere is that issue more prevalent than in contractor subcontractor relationships. Over the years the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed various tests for determining joint employer status. Unless a business entity is an employer of individuals, the NLRB has no jurisdiction over a dispute between the workers and a business entity for whom they work.
It is important for contractors to understand the importance of being an employer and the obligations that flow from such status. Likewise, it is also important to understand when a contractor may be classified as a “joint employer” over certain individuals. Depending on the specific laws involved, such a finding of joint-employer status can happen under the “joint employer doctrine” which often exists in subcontractor and temporary employment arrangements. The “joint-employer doctrine” may render a contractor responsible for another company’s employment liabilities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLCMr. Vicknair may be contacted at
agv@darcyvicknair.com
Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFRepairs to the Medina County District Library in Lodi, Ohio should be complete next spring. The library’s lawsuit over the roof is just beginning. The library building was a $3 million project in 2005, but the building had to close in 2011 when it was determined that the roof was not structurally sound.
The lawsuit names six defendants, including the contractor, the framing subcontractor, and the engineering firm. The library seeking damages, legal expenses, and attorney fees. The cost of replacing the roof was $1.5 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense
May 16, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation, Case No. F074027 (March 27, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District considered the following mind-twister: Can you knowingly approve something (which does not include something else) if you never considered the absence of that “something else?” Think about that for a moment . . . or, better yet, just read on.
Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation
In 2013, a pickup truck traveling westbound on State Route 152 toward Los Banos, California, ran off the road injuring Erik Rodriguez and the driver and killing another passenger. Rodriguez sued the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on the ground that the accident was caused by a dangerous condition on public property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
CCPA Class Action Lawsuits Are Coming. Are You Ready?
March 23, 2020 —
Daniel Schneider & Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer DillionThe only certainties in life used to be death and taxes. In 2020, it would be safe to add California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) class actions to that "distinguished" list. On February 3, Barnes v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, N.D. Cal., Case No. 20-cv-00812, was filed in the Northern District of California, setting in motion the certainty that CCPA class actions are on their way, if not already here.* Filed on behalf of all California residents, the Barnes complaint alleges that between September and November 2019, clothing retailer Hanna Andersson and Salesforce, its online payment services provider, failed to properly safeguard the personally identifiably information (PII) of its customers after hackers stole customers' private information and posted it to the dark web for sale.
What You Need to Know
- Under the CCPA, a data breach is any unauthorized access, theft or disclosure of a consumer's non-encrypted and non-redacted personal information that results from a company's failure to implement and maintain "reasonable" security procedures and practices. Here, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices in order to protect the consumers' PII.
- Although the CCPA is largely viewed as new law related to California consumers' privacy rights (and placement of subsequent obligations to companies doing business in California), the CCPA includes potentially draconian damages for a data breach permitted by unreasonable cybersecurity. Under the new law, an individual need not show any actual harm caused by a data breach, yet he/she may seek statutory fines of up to $750 per incident per individual in the event of a breach. Plaintiffs estimate that at least 10,000 California residents could have been affected by this breach, thereby exposing defendants to up to $7.5 million dollars in damages if proven true.
- There exists a duty to monitor and ensure that third party organizations are properly safeguarding a company's data. During the course of the investigation into the breach, it was discovered that the Salesforce ecommerce platform was infected with malware which allowed the hackers to steal consumers' PII from Hanna Andersson's website.
- The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, yet enforcement by the California Attorney General is not allowed until July 2020. However, no such delay is required for private litigation under the data breach portion of the CCPA. Interestingly, although the complaint alleges that the data breach occurred in 2019, the court could choose to apply the CCPA but that is still yet to be determined.
While Barnes may be the first class action lawsuit to mention violation of the CCPA, it certainly will not be the last. In fact, numerous class actions lawsuits have been filed in the new year which either mention the CCPA or utilize CCPA-like language to style particular claims. As such, it is evident that the Plaintiffs' bar sees the CCPA as a potential for extensive class action litigation. Expect to see an ongoing deluge of class action litigation in California under the data breach portions of the CCPA. In addition, although the Barnes' plaintiffs may not be able to invoke the CCPA due to the data breach occurring in 2019 (before the CCPA took affect), Barnes serves as a stark reminder that implementing and maintaining reasonable data security is vital to defend a business against CCPA claims. Newmeyer Dillion can assist companies analyze their cyber risk profile, and provide access to experienced forensic teams which can ensure reasonable security exists in your organization.
*While Barnes does not yet expressly state a cause of action under the CCPA, relying upon violations of the California Unfair Competition Law in its place, we anticipate that an amendment will soon be filed to include a CCPA claim.
Daniel Schneider is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Privacy & Data Security group. Focused on advocating on behalf of clients when cyber threats inevitably happen, Dan also advises on best practices to help protect the company and mitigate future concerns. Dan can be reached at daniel.schneider@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
