#7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to attorney
Tred R. Eyerly on a post on his
Insurance Law Hawaii blog, “The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period.” Eyerly concluded, “Even if exposure to excessively high temperatures created a harmful condition during the policy period, the existence of that condition did not result in property damage to the water heater occurring during the policy period, and thus did not constitute an ‘occurrence’ as defined by the policy.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”
August 28, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyWho needs them?
So argued a surety pursuing recovery under its general agreement of indemnity when the indemnitors urged a Louisiana federal court to dismiss the surety’s complaint for failure to join various allegedly required parties as defendants in the litigation.
As part of its court action, the surety moved for preliminary injunction to enforce its collateral security rights. In response thereto, the indemnitors informed the court that if the injunction were to be granted, the indemnitors would “be forced to sell assets that are encumbered by security interests senior to those held by” the surety. In connection therewith, the indemnitors demanded that the other creditors be joined in the action or the lawsuit dismissed. The indemnitors also urged that the public project owner be joined as a party because the surety was seeking proceeds from the project that were still in the possession of the project owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again
July 04, 2023 —
Brett Hill & Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn 2018, the Washington Legislature amended its prevailing wages statute adopting S.S.B 5493 and codified as RCW 39.12.015(3). RCW 39.12.015(3) changed how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician set the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, from a county-by-county basis to a “geographic jurisdiction” basis established in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) or if multiple CBAs, the CBA with the higher wage would prevail. This change proved problematic for contractors since it allowed a minority of employees to determine the prevailing wage through side agreements and limited meaningful wage negotiations by industry trade groups. Contrary to the previous rule wherein wages were set by the average or majority wage rate in a certain county (which was normally the collectively bargained wage) and provided some flexibility to the industrial statistician in determining the prevailing wage, now, RCW 39.12.015(3)(a) directs the industrial statistician to “establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage … paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in [CBAs],” removing flexibility, and requiring the inclusion of CBA (which could encompass multiple counties) wage rates as a part of the prevailing wage formula.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight and
Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Look Back at the Ollies
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, also known as the “Ollie” award, is presented to “an individual who is outstanding or has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community.” West Coast Casualty asks members of the construction defect community to nominate those they feel are deserving of the award, and then members vote for one of four nominees. The award is presented at the West Coast Casualty Seminar. Those recognized receive a plaque and a donation in the winner’s name to Habitat for Humanity as well as a local California and Nevada charity.
Jerrold S. Oliver was a “’founding father’ in the alternate resolution process in construction defect claims and litigation. His loyalty and commitment to this community were beyond mere words as he was a true believer in the process of resolution.”
Past Award Winners:
1996 - Awarded to Ross R. Hart, Esq. (Mediator - American Arbitration Assoc.)
1997 - Awarded to Merv Thompson, Esq. (Mediator in private practice)
1999 - Awarded to Tom Craigo, (Adjuster - C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2000 - Awarded to Kristi Cole, (Adjuster - Safeco Insurance Company)
2001 - Awarded to Karen Rice, (Claims Manager - ACE / USA)
2002 - Awarded to Stephen Henning, Esq. (Wood, Smith, Henning and Berman, LLP)
2003 - Awarded to Ross Feinberg, Esq. (Feldscott, Lee, Feinberg, Grant and Mayfield LLP)
2004 - Awarded to Janet Shipes (Adjuster – C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2005 - Awarded to Edward Martinet (Expert – MC Consultants)
2006 - Awarded to Hon. Victoria V. Chaney (Judge – Los Angeles Superior Court)
2007 - Awarded to Bruce Edwards, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2008 - Awarded to Gerald Kurland, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2009 - Awarded to Keith Koeller, Esq. (Koeller, Nebecker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP)
2010 - Awarded to Terry Wolcott – (Construction Defect Manager – Travelers Ins. Co.)
2011 - Awarded to George Calkins, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2012 - Awarded to Joyia Greenfield, Esq. (Lorber, Greenfield and Polito, LLP)
2013 - Awarded to Margee Luper (Claim Manager – XL Insurance Group)
2014 - Awarded to Matt Liedle, Esq. (Liedle, Lounsbery, Larson & Lidl, LLP)
2015 - Awarded to Robert A. Bellagamba, Esq. (Special Master/Mediator, Castle & Dekker)
2016 - Awarded to Lisa Unger, (Senior Claims Examiner, Global Management Liability Markel)
2017 - Awarded to Caryn Siebert, (Vice President, Claims, Knight Insurance Group)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogIn its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”).
In a
prior post, we discussed
Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The
prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute.
HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”
September 04, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its Superfund Task Force Recommendations 2018 Update (the Update). The Superfund Task Force was established by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to “provide recommendations on an expedited timeframe on how the agency can restructure the cleanup process, realign incentives of all involved parties to promote expeditious remediation, reduce the burden on cooperating parties, incentivize parties to remediate sites, encourage private investment in cleanups of sites and promote the revitalization of properties across the country.” Over the years, thousands of sites have been listed on EPA’s National Priority List (NPL) of Superfund sites, but the process by which listed sites are cleaned up and finally removed from the NPL has been agonizingly slow. The process is governed by the National Contingency Plan rules. The Update states that, as of July 3, 2018, there are 1,346 sites listed on the NPL, and overall, 399 sites have been removed from the NPL.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Sacramento, California law firm Anderson Shoech has announced that it will be filing a construction defect lawsuit concerning a single-family home in Sonora, California. The remodel is alleged to have lead to roof leaks and mold growth. Anderson Schoech will have the home inspected by a general contractor who will be retained as an expert witness.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
