Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation
May 15, 2023 —
Steve Swart - The Dispute ResolverMaybe it is another lawyer on your team, a client, the Court. Maybe it is you. Almost every lawyer has heard (or thought, felt, or anguished over) the following: Wait — What? Discovery is going to cost how much?
The concern is real. Per a 2019 Southern District of New York opinion:
- The average case can involve collection, review and production of 100 gigabytes of data (or 6.5 million pages of Word documents).
- At a typical rate of review of 40-60 documents per hour, assuming 100,000 documents are collected, that is about 2,000 hours of attorney review time.
- Adding in fees for forensic collection, storage, and processing to maintain metadata can result in a bill totaling $500,000.
Brown v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 3d 637, 645 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
What's counsel to do? The following four points can help counsel streamline and reduce costs in discovery: (1) know your case, (2) know your data — understand it and document collection, (3) cooperate with counsel, and (4) implement a protocol for electronically-stored information ("ESI").
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steve Swart, Williams MullenMr. Swart may be contacted at
sswart@williamsmullen.com
Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.
November 21, 2022 —
Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogLiquidated damages provisions in commercial and residential real estate contracts play a vital role when a transaction goes south, and should be given careful consideration when negotiating a real estate contract. Liquidated damages may be referred to in a variety of ways, such as “earnest money,” a “good-faith deposit,” or a “non-refundable deposit,” but each typically denote a negotiated amount of money that a seller is entitled to retain should a buyer breach a purchase and sale agreement. The purpose of liquidated damages is to provide the parties with certainty when actual damages arising from a breach of contract may be difficult to calculate. Accordingly, liquidated damages provisions alleviate the need for potentially expensive litigation associated with proving damages.
While parties are free to negotiate the amount of liquidated damages, the amount must approximate the loss anticipated at the time of contracting, or the loss that actually occurs as a result of a breach. Arizona courts have held that where the amount of liquidated damages is unreasonably large when compared to the anticipated loss or actual loss, the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable as a penalty. A breaching party faced with high liquidated damages will often seek to invalidate the provision as a penalty. If a court agrees, the non-breaching party may still recover damages, but must go through the process of proving such damages. Therefore, when negotiating a real estate contract, consideration should be given as to whether a liquidated damages amount is arbitrarily high when compared to an anticipated loss in the event of a breach.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Fernandez, Snell & WilmerMr. Fernandez may be contacted at
cfernandez@swlaw.com
Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit
May 24, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions.
First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet
October 30, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & Amtoj S. Randhawa - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGerman manufacturer eQ-3 has found itself under siege by a botnet known as "Hide 'N Seek." This pernicious malware has infected tens of thousands of eQ-3's smart home devices by compromising the device's central control unit. Once a device has been infected, the malware spreads to other Internet of Things ("IoT") devices connected to the same wireless network. IoT devices have become the prime target for botnet attacks. As opposed to computers, laptops, or other larger computing devices, the smaller storage capacity and lower processing power of IoT devices limit the amount and complexity of the security measures that can be installed—making them an easier target for botnets.
What is a Botnet?
For those unfamiliar with the term, a botnet is a network of devices infected with a malware program allowing the infector to control and/or exploit the devices. Once a suitable number of devices are infected, the person or group controlling the botnet can harness the computing power of each infected device to perform activities which were previously constrained by a single device's capabilities (i.e. DDoS attacks, spamming, cryptocurrency mining, etc.).
Hide 'N Seek – History and Capabilities
The Hide 'N Seek botnet first appeared in January 2018 and has since spread rapidly. Its sophisticated design and capabilities have captivated the attention of many security watchdogs and researchers. While many botnets are designed to be "quick and dirty" (i.e. infect a few devices, eke out a little profit, and inevitably be cleared out or rendered ineffective by security updates and fixes), Hide 'N Seek was designed to maintain itself in the host's system indefinitely. When it was first released, Hide 'N Seek primarily targeted certain routers and internet-enabled security cameras; however, it has now began targeting digital video recorders, database servers, and most recently, smart home hubs.
Hide 'N Seek's communication capabilities are also more advanced than previous botnets. Previous botnets relied on existing communications protocols to communicate with other another, but Hide 'N Seek uses a custom-built peer-to-peer system to communicate. This advancement allows Hide 'N Seek to spread more rapidly than previous botnets.
Hide 'N Seek is also capable of extracting a device owner's personal information (i.e. name, address, e-mail, telephone numbers, etc.) whereas previous botnets were not. Most importantly, Hide 'N Seek is consistently updated to increase its infection rate, decrease its detection probability, and bypass any security measures designed to detect and remove it from the system. This modularity has proved to be Hide 'N Seek's greatest strength.
Protecting Against Hide 'N Seek and Other Botnets
While many of the precautions will undoubtedly come from the device manufactures vis-à-vis software programming and updates, homebuilders can still take some precautions to protect their customers.
- When selecting a smart home system to incorporate into a home's construction, be sure to evaluate its security features including, but not limited to its: wireless connectivity, password/passphrase requirements, interconnectedness with other IoT devices, etc. Third-party reviews from tech-oriented outlets will likely have useful information on a device's security measures, vulnerabilities, and any recent security compromises.
- Be vigilant in installing any eQ-3 smart home systems. The extent of the damage caused by Hide 'N Seek botnet remains unknown, as does damage from other potentially-infected technology. Thus, it may be prudent to avoid installing any eQ-3 device until it becomes evident that the threat has been neutralized and all security vulnerabilities have been remedied.
- If a builder uses technology other than eQ-3, precautions must be taken. Ensure that technology providers are thoroughly researched. It is also recommended to include strong contractual indemnity provisions, and require vendors to carry cyber-specific insurance policies.
- Homebuilders should consider purchasing their own stand alone cyber liability policies as a safety net, should potential exposure arise.
Scott Satkin and Amtoj Randhawa are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Amtoj at amtoj.randhawa@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal
December 06, 2021 —
Corinne Bertsche, Jeffry Miller & Tracy Forbath - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego, Calif. (October 28, 2021) - San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry A. Miller and Corinne C. Bertsche, along with Associate Tracy D. Forbath, recently obtained a win on appeal when California's Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Four affirmed the trial court’s grant of a client homeowners association’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying matter, the plaintiff alleged claims for premises liability and negligence for injuries he sustained when tripping over an uplift of two misaligned adjacent slabs of concrete sidewalk, measuring 1.25 inches and located next to a condominium complex.
The appellate court agreed that the defect in question was a trivial defect as a matter of law, despite the plaintiff’s arguments that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the uplift’s dangerousness was exacerbated by the presence of aggravating factors. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s expert declaration did not support the alleged aggravating factors with admissible evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Corinne Bertsche, Lewis Brisbois,
Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois and
Tracy Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bertsche may be contacted at Corinne.Bertsche@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)
November 19, 2021 —
Laura Fleming & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsUpdate 11.8.21: On Nov. 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the OSHA ETS, stating that the OSHA ETS may have “grave statutory and constitutional issues.” The stay is not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but temporarily halts its implementation nationwide. OSHA has until Nov. 8, 2021 at 5:00 PM to respond and the petitioners have until Nov. 9, 2021 at 5:00 PM to reply to OSHA’s response. The Fifth Circuit will then issue its ruling likely late this week or early next week.
On Sept. 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his COVID-19 Action Plan. The Action Plan called on the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to develop a rule requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work.
On Nov. 4, 2021, OSHA released the rule in the form of an Emergency Temporary Standards (“OSHA ETS”). Here are ten things you need to know about the OSHA ETS:
- How To Count To 100: (1) The applicable number is the total number of employees employed on November 5, 2021—this is the headcount that will be used for the duration of the OSHA ETS. (2) The count must be done at the employer level not the individual location level. (3) Part-time employees do count towards the total number of employees. (4) Employees who work from home do count towards the total number of employees. (5) Independent contractors do not count towards the total number of employee.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Fleming, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Fleming may be contacted at lf@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
July 13, 2017 —
Melinda S. Gentile – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The 2017 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded, and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session, most notably SB 204/HB 377. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement.
The following construction-related Bills passed in both the House and Senate and will become law if approved by the Governor.
Senate Bill (SB) 204/House Bill (HB) 377: Relating to the Statute of Repose for causes of action based on design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and was approved by the Governor on June 14, 2017. This bill becomes effective on July 1, 2017.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Gentile may be contacted at
mgentile@pecklaw.com
