Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List
July 18, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionWALNUT CREEK, Calif. – JULY 10, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney Alan Packer has been selected to the 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers list. No more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers each year.
Packer is a partner in the firm's expanding Walnut Creek office. He has practiced law in California for over 30 years, mostly representing parties involved in real estate, home building, commercial construction, and insurance matters. He represents business clients, homebuilders, property owners, and others in a broad range of legal matters.
Packer is a frequent speaker at seminars and in-house training sessions for clients on issues relating to risk management, construction litigation, and insurance.
Earlier this year, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys in Newport Beach and Las Vegas were also selected to Super Lawyers lists. Packer brings its total to 19 Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys recognized.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, resulting in a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Alan Packer
Partner
Walnut Creek
Contact
925.988.3200
alan.packer@ndlf.com
Practices
Business Litigation
Construction Litigation
Insurance Law
Real Estate Litigation
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects
February 07, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the most important provisions in construction contracts is the indemnification provision. Appreciating contractual indemnification obligations are critical and certainly should not be overlooked. Ever!
Florida Statute s. 725.06 (written about here and here) contains a limitation on contractual indemnification provisions for personal injury or property damage in construction contracts. There should always be an indemnification provision in a construction contract that addresses property damage or personal injury. Always!
Section 725.06 pertains to agreements in connection with “any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating associated therewith…” If the contract requires the indemnitor (party giving the indemnification) to indemnify the indemnitee (party receiving the indemnification) for the indemnitee’s own negligence, the indemnification provision is unenforceable unless it contains a “monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and is part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any.” It is important to read the statute when preparing and dealing with a contractual indemnification provision.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com
Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential
January 19, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Colorado Supreme Court ordered the insurer to produce documents after failing to demonstrate the documents contained were trade secrets. In Re Rumnock v. Anschutz, 2016 Colo. LEXIS 1228 (Colo. Dec. 5, 2016).
Stephen Rumnock was involved in an auto accident with an uninsured driver. Rumnock brought negligence claims against the driver and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims against his insurers, including American Family Insurance Company. American Family initially refused to pay benefits, but eventually paid him policy limits. Rumnock then amended his complaint to add bad faith and abuse of process claims against American Family. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023
December 05, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have written a couple of times here at Musings regarding the new pay-if-paid legislation passed by the General Assembly last session. While the statute has some inconsistencies and a working group has made some recommendations, the legislation as passed will go into effect on January 1, 2023, without any changes (at least until next session). As always, such action by our legislature here in Virginia will create work for construction attorneys assisting their clients to amend contracts to meet the new rules.
Essentially (and with minor inconsistencies between public and private contracts), the bill requires that any construction contract entered into after January 1, 2023 have the following provisions:
- On public projects: A payment clause that obligates a contractor on a construction contract to be liable for the entire amount owed to any subcontractor with which it contracts. Such contractor shall not be liable for amounts otherwise reducible due to the subcontractor’s noncompliance with the terms of the contract. However, in the event that the contractor withholds all or a part of the amount promised to the subcontractor under the contract, the contractor shall notify the subcontractor, in writing, of his intention to withhold all or a part of the subcontractor’s payment with the reason for nonpayment.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens
May 04, 2020 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy.
While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution
July 28, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
When you file a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit, you must also record a lis pendens in the official (public) records against the property. This lis pendens serves as written notice that there is a lawsuit concerning the real property, and more specifically, title relating to that real property. If the property is then sold or rented, the buyer or tenant will ultimately be bound by a final determination relating to the lawsuit concerning title to the property. This is the value in recording a lis pendens and why it is a MUST in any foreclosure lawsuit. (This is the same value in any mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and why lis pendens are recorded in these lawsuits too.) A lis pendens will show up in a title report. In most instances, title companies will not issue a title policy if there is a lis pendens or may require a certain amount of money escrowed as a result of the lis pendens and pending action in order to issue a title policy. Also, a buyer, in particular, and a tenant are not going to want to invest in property where the title to that property is at-issue in a lawsuit. Hence, the lis pendens impacts the sale and potential re-financing of the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law
September 24, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties.
Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney.
In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges
July 08, 2024 — Geoffrey B. Fehling, Michael S. Levine & Alex D. Pappas - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
We have previewed in prior posts the ways artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the way business operate, including the many ways AI has influenced the insurance market, creating both opportunities and risks for policyholders. We later highlighted, based on a recent securities lawsuit, how corporate management may be at risk for the alleged use or misuse of AI and how companies should evaluate their directors and officers (D&O) and management liability policies to ensure that they are prepared to respond to and mitigate AI-driven risks, including claims alleging that a company or its officers and directors made misrepresentations about AI.
That potential risk now has regulatory teeth, as the US Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged the founder of an AI hiring startup with fraud based on claims about using AI to help clients find diverse and underrepresented candidates to fulfill diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring goals.
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alex D. Pappas, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Pappas may be contacted at apappas@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
