County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFManatee County, Florida officials stated that “they are confident construction defects at the Willowbrook subdivision being fixed by the builder KB Home are being properly supervised and repaired,” according to the Bradenton Herald. However, a resident told the Bradenton Herald previously that “mold remediation isn’t being done properly and good wood was being installed over rotted wood.”
John Barnott, director of the Manatee County Building & Development Services Department told the Bradenton Herald that the county building chief has been at the site “every week, three or four times a week.” Carroll Dupre, the county building chief, stated that the development “looks real good.” The commissioner, Vanessa Baugh, stated that she had not received any complaints from Willowbrook residents and that “she was ‘not pleased with the implications of the article.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Recession Is Coming, But the Housing Market Won't Trigger It
June 12, 2023 —
Edward Harrison - BloombergOne big reason to continue to believe this is no 2008-style financial crisis in the making is the housing market, which has held up well. That means, we’re more likely to experience a garden-variety recession, and I think it will happen sometime later this year.
Why this isn’t another 2008-style crisis
Residential property was famously the trigger for a cataclysmic global financial crisis a decade and a half ago. That’s because residential property is one of the principal assets of the middle classes across the globe. And it’s a leveraged investment to boot because of the money borrowed through mortgages. That makes large and pervasive house-price declines toxic for the economy.
But not that many people are worrying about house prices today. So I thought I’d take a breather from the doom and gloom surrounding commercial real estate, banks and the debt ceiling to focus on house prices and why they aren’t worrying us this go round. And I’ll use one of the pricier markets, the UK, as a first example.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Harrison, Bloomberg
We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found
August 10, 2020 —
Shaia Araghi & Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionWorldwide closures as a result of COVID-19 have resulted in an extreme surge in video conferencing use. This spike in use has also resulted in increased concern about the privacy of these video conferencing applications, including a class action lawsuit against one of the applications: Zoom. Because of this, we took a deeper look into the privacy policies of six prominent video conferencing applications and created a chart showing each video conferencing application's compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Reviewing these materials will provide an awareness of the deficiencies within the Privacy Policies, which can help you become more well-informed about your own rights, and more knowledgeable about any deficiencies in your own business' privacy policy. If these widely-used and widely-known companies can have deficiencies, it is an important way to re-examine and fix these issues in your own.
To determine this, we reviewed the CCPA's twenty requirements for compliance, including: (1) the existence of a privacy policy, (2) required disclosures of information regarding the existence of rights under the CCPA, (3) instructions on how to exercise rights, and (4) providing contact information.
Here are the top 5 discoveries from our review:
1)
No videoconferencing applications address authorized agents. This makes sense, as the treatment of authorized agents were just laid out in the recently finalized regulations. This is a reminder to businesses to utilize these regulations when setting up compliance measures to ensure there is no risk in missing out on requirements like this, which will still be required and enforced by the Attorney General.
2)
Three platforms (WebEx, Skype, and Teams) have separate tabs and pages detailing privacy policies, and don't necessarily have a single unified and simple policy. Because of the accessibility requirements, this means that the privacy policy may not be readily accessible on the business's website, and may open companies to arguments that the entirety of their policy is non-compliant if key portions are hidden or otherwise inaccessible. Therefore to eliminate this concern, keep your policy unified, simple and in one location for ease of viewing.
3)
None of the platforms address information relating to minors under the age of 16, which is notable as some of these platforms have been used for online education. The final regulations outline different treatment for minors from ages 13 to 16, and for minors under the age of 13. As a result, privacy policies focused on compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) may be insufficient as it only applies to those under 13 years old.
4)
While all of the platforms state that no sale of information occurs, two platforms (Zoom and GoToMeeting) go above and beyond to explain the right to opt-out of sales. This is especially great as the CCPA permits that no notice needs to be given if no sale occurs. By taking this extra step, Zoom and GoToMeeting explain to their users that they have additional rights, which may be necessary as these platforms are also used by other entities, which may collect or otherwise use information collected from a videoconference meeting.
5)
Only one platform (Wire) does not give instructions on how to delete information. The CCPA regulations still require that information regarding instructions on how to delete information be given. The lack of instructions does not relieve Wire from its obligations, and similarly situated businesses may find themselves in a position where they will have to comply with a consumer request, in any form, as the regulations require that a business either comply, or list the proper instructions on how to make the request.
Download the Full Breakdown
To learn more about our findings and how the video conferencing companies stacked up against the CCPA, visit: https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/ccpa-privacy-policy-compliance-videoconferencing-platforms/. We hope this serves as a reminder to everyone to read the privacy platforms for the services you use and update your company's privacy policies to comply with the most recent regulations, as none of these services are currently in complete compliance, and it is only a matter of time before enforcement begins.
Shaia Araghi is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber-related matters, including compliance and prevention that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Shaia can help, contact her at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA
July 31, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage.
On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project.
MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioBrady Iandiorio can be contacted at
Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?
March 23, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & FearsUpdated Guidance as of March 19, 2020.
You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too.
Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees?
Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws.
Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work?
Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic.
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys
Amy R. Patton,
Leila S. Narvid,
Matthew C. Lewis,
Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and
Sarah J. Odia
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com
Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com
Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com
Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans
July 30, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction plans to fix the $60 million high school football stadium in Allen, Texas, which has been closed due to cracks discovered in the structure, is expected to be approved by the Allen School Board of Trustees, reported KHOU.
The construction company and architectural firm both stated “they will cover the costs to fix everything -- which could run between $600,000 and $1 million.”
The school board plans on using “$2 million in bonds for the construction, renovation, acquisition and equipment of school facilities,” and will then seek to recover the amount of repairs “from the parties responsible for defects and/or construction problems and failures.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions
September 30, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLPThe standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019).
Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains.
The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases
July 16, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn certain matters, there is an affirmative defense referred to as the “voluntary payments” defense. This defense states, “where one makes a payment of any sum under a claim of right with knowledge of the facts such a payment is voluntary and cannot be recovered.” Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1272c (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) quoting City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So.2d 547, 551 (Fla. 1959). This voluntary payments defense could be construed as a “gotcha” defense, right? Unfair! You voluntarily made the payment with knowledge of the facts; therefore, you are s**t out of luck when it comes to recovering the potentially wrongful payment.
Well, guess what? This voluntary payments affirmative defense does NOT apply in contract disputes. This is codified by Florida Statute s. 725.04 which states: “When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.” Fla.Stat. s. 725.04. See also Avatar Properties, supra (explaining voluntary payment defense does not apply in contract cases and even in non-contract cases it doesn’t apply if payment made under coercion or compulsion).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
