Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!
January 19, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWe all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer.
In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations
June 11, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to an article by Matthew D. Stockwell of the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP published in Lexology, “a trial court in Bergen County, New Jersey dismissed a condominium association's construction defect claims against several construction entities for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations.”
Stockwell stated that the “aftermath will be interesting to follow, because the trial court stripped away some of the protection that New Jersey's discovery rule affords to property owners who become aware of latent defects well after a project is substantially completed.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues
July 05, 2021 —
Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLPClaims against manufacturers and distributors of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) are hurtling forward. Two important developments in this opening salvo of PFAS-related claims against numerous defendants could have important ramifications not only on future PFAS litigation, but on insurance coverage for potential PFAS liabilities as well. First, ten bellwether cases are progressing closer to trial. Second, the key “government contractor defense” has been slated for briefing.
In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established a multi-district litigation (MDL 2873) for AFFF PFAS claims in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Unlike previous PFAS lawsuits (primarily against DuPont and/or 3M), the lawsuits in MDL 2873 target dozens of defendants who manufactured and distributed AFFF and its constituent chemicals. MDL 2873 now houses approximately 1,200 member cases, which include the following categories of claims: (i) claims for property damage asserted by water providers, (ii) claims for property damage asserted by property owners, (iii) bodily injury claims, and (iv) claims for medical monitoring for potential future injury.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHiram Siaba, formerly Miami Lake, Florida’s public works director, has been fined for allegedly violating “an ethics ordinance that prevents public employees from doing business with former employers for a two-year period,” according to the Miami Herald. A few months prior to taking the job with the city, Siaba had worked part-time for Ballarena Construction. Siaba awarded Ballarena Construction “more than 10 projects that fell below the $25,000 threshold for awarding contracts without going to the Town Council for approval.”
Ballarena had also been awarded a million-dollar youth center project, which “came to a halt last year” when town officials alleged that structural defects were discovered during an inspection. Miami Lakes is currently negotiating with Ballarena’s surety company to attempt to finish the project.
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
Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods
July 22, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelState of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem.
State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability
April 22, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies.
In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List
October 14, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogBenchmark Litigation has named
Syed Ahmad, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice, to the publication’s 40 & Under Hot List. Benchmark Litigation is the definitive guide to America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys. The 40 & Under Hot List honors the most notable up-and-coming litigation attorneys in the United States. Those named to the list have proven their eligibility as individuals at the partner level of their respective firms who are 40 years of age or younger.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
