Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List
January 17, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight attorneys have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list.
Congratulations to:
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August
September 10, 2014 —
Noah Buhayar - BloombergAn earthquake that struck the California wine country north of San Francisco and flooding in the U.S. last month caused more than $4 billion in economic losses, according insurance broker Aon Plc. (AON)
A 6.0-magnitude temblor shook the city of Napa on Aug. 24, damaging more than 1,100 buildings, injuring at least 258 people and causing about $2 billion in economic damages, the London-based broker said today in a report. Insured losses are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, because of the below-average extent of coverage, Aon said.
“Residential earthquake insurance penetration rates have gradually lowered in California during the past two decades from 33 percent in 1996 to roughly 10 percent today,” Steve Bowen, associate director and meteorologist for Aon Benfield Impact Forecasting, said in a statement. The Napa quake “serves as a reminder of the unpredictability and costly impacts.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Noah Buhayar, BloombergMr. Buhayar may be contacted at
nbuhayar@bloomberg.net
Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage
July 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.
The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.
Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.
After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.
The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”
Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”
The court concluded:
Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies
February 12, 2024 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanIn the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio.
Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies.
Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins
August 06, 2019 —
William E. Underwood - ConsensusDocsProject closeout is sometimes one of the last things on a contractor’s mind at the beginning of a project, but project closeout can have a huge impact on a contractor’s overall profitability and success. Effectively managing the closeout process is critical, and it all begins with the negotiation and execution of the project contract. This contract can, and should, provide a complete roadmap for project closeout, as addressing these issues on the front end can set up the parties for successful project completion. It is then equally important to re-review the terms of the contract as project closeout approaches to ensure that everyone, including the owner, adheres to all contractual requirements.
This article examines several pertinent issues related to project closeout that should be addressed during the contracting stage, including defining substantial and final completion, inspection and acceptance, punch lists, and warranties.
Defining Substantial and Final Completion
Having clear definitions for both substantial and final completion in your construction contract is an important and necessary early step in achieving successful project closeout.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLPMr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes
June 18, 2019 —
Amanda Z. Weaver - Snell & WilmerIn an opinion published February 25, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Maricopa County’s surcharge on car rental agencies to fund a stadium and other sports- and tourism-related projects did not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution or the anti-diversion provision of the Arizona Constitution, art. 9, § 14. Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue.
In 2000, the Arizona Legislature created the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority (the Authority) to build and/or operate a variety of sports-related facilities, including Major League Baseball spring training facilities, and youth and amateur sports and recreation centers. Taxes and surcharges, approved by voters, are the sole funding for the Authority’s construction projects, including the challenged surcharge in Maricopa County. This surcharge is based on the income from car rental companies leasing vehicles to customers for less than one year, and is the greater of $2.50 per rental or 3.25% of the company’s gross proceeds or income. A.R.S. § 5-839. The state treasurer deposits $2.50 per rental transaction into the Maricopa County Stadium District, as it has since 1991, and the remaining amount of the difference between $2.50 per transaction and 3.25% of the company’s gross income or proceeds is distributed to the Authority. Rental car companies often pass this surcharge on to their customers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda Z. Weaver, Snell & WilmerMs. Weaver may be contacted at
aweaver@swlaw.com
Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law
February 06, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a negligence action, the issue of whether a duty applies is a question of law. See Limones v. School Dist. of Lee County, 161 So.3d 384, 389 (Fla. 2015) (“[T]he existence of a duty is a legal question because duty is the standard to which the jury compares the conduct of the defendant.”); McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (“Since duty is a question of law, an appellate court obviously could reverse based on its purely legal conclusion that no such duty existed.”). Thus, the trial court determines, as a matter of law, whether a legal duty of care applies in a negligence action.
Florida law recognizes the following four sources of duty: (1) statutes or regulations; (2) common law interpretations of those statutes or regulations; (3) other sources in the common law; and (4) the general facts of the case.
See id.
Oftentimes it is the fourth source – the general facts of the case – that comes into play to determine whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
