Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing
February 28, 2018 —
Omar Parra and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Publications & InsightsAs Dwight Schrute of hit NBC show “The Office” said, “identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!” In response, Congress has passed a variety of legislation over the years aimed at curbing identity theft. One such piece of legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as amended by corollary acts, prohibits the printing of more than the last 5 digits of the credit card number or the credit card number’s expiration date on any sales receipt. Anyone who “willfully fails to comply with [the requirements] is liable to that consumer” for statutory or actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and potential punitive damages. But is a statutory violation of the FCRA alone a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing? No, says the Ninth Circuit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Omar Parra, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II , Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States
December 14, 2020 —
Robert S. Peckar & Crystal T. Dang - Construction ExecutiveIn these times of easy and instant access to news from around the globe, the effects of major earthquakes in Indonesia and Mexico, cyclones in Southeast Asia, Tsunamis around the world, volcanoes in Europe in unexpected places and, of course, raging forest fires and hurricanes in the United States are frequently in the news. Accompanying each of these disasters are immediate threats to construction projects, both physical and those affecting the safety and health of personnel.
However, after the dust settles or the waters recede, myriad issues will become obstacles to the road to recovery for a contractor to navigate. In 2020 alone, the volume of strong storms and forest fires have focused so much attention on the impact of disasters. The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines in anticipation of disasters, for reviewing the impact of a disaster as it is happening, and developing a mitigation plan to limit losses.
Anticipating Disasters
The best time to prepare for a disaster on a project is before the project starts. Reviewing contract rights, insurance policies and company disaster response protocols while a category 3 hurricane is a day away is not a best practice. To avoid falling into that situation, a contractor should follow the following guidelines. Doing so facilitates proper action during the actual disaster itself and in the aftermath.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert S. Peckar & Crystal T. Dang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Peckar may be contacted at rpeckar@pecklaw.com
Ms. Dang may be contacted at cdang@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter
October 10, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013).
The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend.
The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP").
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
“Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)
April 20, 2017 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaRecently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care.
This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you.
Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed
January 17, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a contractor had a duty to a third party to warn it of a dangerous condition, even after the contractor had completed its work and the owner had accepted the contractor’s work. Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., -- P.3d --, 2012 WL 5871446 (Colo. App. 2012). While not an earth shattering or entirely new concept, the decision rendered in Collard directly accepted the foreseeability rule at the expense of the completed and accepted rule. Id.
In Collard, the City of Grand Junction (“the City”) hired Vista Paving Corp. (“Vista”) to construct two road medians according to the City’s plans and designs. On July 9, 2007, Vista began work on the medians. According to its contract with the City, Vista was responsible for traffic control during construction of the medians. On July 19, 2007, Vista completed its construction of both medians. On that date, the City’s project inspector conducted his final inspection of Vista’s work. The City’s inspector then told Vista that its work had been completed and that Vista was authorized to leave the site. Vista requested permission to remove the traffic control devices to which the City’s inspector agreed. Vista removed all of its traffic control devices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioMr. Iandiorio can be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level
July 30, 2014 —
Alexis Leondis – BloombergBanks are handing out mortgages of as much as $10 million to the wealthy in record numbers while first-time homebuyers struggle to get loans.
Erin Gorman, managing director at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., said she’s fielding more requests for home loans of at least $2 million than ever before. She recently provided a mortgage of more than $6 million for a client’s purchase of a second property in Colorado.
“These high-net-worth borrowers do act differently than first-time buyers, who borrow because they have to,” said Gorman, who serves as the national mortgage sales director at Bank of New York Mellon’s wealth management group based in Boston. “High-net-worth borrowers don’t have to borrow. They choose to, so they’re very strategic about what, why, and when they borrow.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexis Leondis, BloombergMs. Leondis may be contacted at
aleondis@bloomberg.net
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute
June 14, 2021 —
Christy Jachimowski - Lewis BrisboisSection 13a-149 of the Connecticut General Statutes, commonly known as Connecticut’s highway defect statute, provides that claims arising from injuries or damages to people or property resulting from a defective road or bridge can be asserted against a party responsible for maintaining that road or bridge. Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-149. The statute also extends to sidewalks and further provides that written notice of an alleged injury must be given to a defendant municipality within ninety days of the injury.
Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite notice requirements, pursuant to the statute, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in denying the municipality’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Underlying Case
In February of 2013, Plaintiff William Dobie filed suit against the City of New Haven alleging injuries and damages as a result of the negligence of a City of New Haven snowplow operator. Dobie’s claims arose from an incident that occurred on January 21, 2011, in which he was driving behind the City snowplow driver, who was in the process of plowing snow from a municipal street located in New Haven, Connecticut. As the defendant employee was operating his snowplow, he knocked off a manhole cover, causing Dobie’s vehicle to drive over the open manhole. Dobie claimed personal injuries as a result of his vehicle dropping into the open manhole, including injuries to his jaw.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christy Jachimowski, Lewis BrisboisMs. Jachimowski may be contacted at
Christy.Jachimowski@lewisbrisbois.com
