California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims
February 16, 2016 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogEarlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show:
1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident;
2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and
3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Texas Allows Wide Scope for Certificate of Merit
January 07, 2025 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistThe purpose of certificate of merit (sometimes referred to as affidavit of merit) statutes is to identify frivolous claims before the court wastes time and resources during litigation. More common in medical malpractice cases, several states have enacted similar requirements for professional negligence claims dealing with construction-related issues. While a subrogation attorney should not be bringing a frivolous case to suit anyway, the requirement adds another step in the process that plaintiffs need to properly navigate.
Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that in an action arising out of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, claimants must file an affidavit from a qualified expert attesting to the theories of recovery, the negligence and the factual basis for the claims. The expert must be competent, have the same professional license or registration as the defendant and practice in the area of practice of the defendant.
In Janis Smith Consulting, LLC v. Rosenberg, No. 03-23-00370-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7961, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District (Court of Appeals) addressed a challenge from the defendant as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s certificate of merit in an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the allegedly improper certificate of merit, holding that the plaintiff’s expert was sufficiently qualified to certify the legitimacy of the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted
March 02, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesConsider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project.
The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company.
First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note.
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
Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation
August 03, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn certain jurisdictions, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 is on the rise. As this occurs, there is the possibility that a construction project will have to deal with one or more workers testing positive. That is the current reality. If the dialogue has not occurred before, now is the time to discuss any enhanced measures—above OSHA guidelines—that could be implemented to address this reality and mitigate the risk. Part of the reality, though, is that regardless of the enhanced measures and mitigation, it is impossible to truly prevent this risk.
No one disputes COVID-19. There may be a dispute as to whether COVID-19 constitutes a force majeure event or some other event, however, before you start labeling it, you still NEED TO PROVE the impact caused by COVID-19. There needs to be a cause-and-effect relationship so you can address (i) how this impacted the critical path of your schedule and/or (ii) how this impacted labor productivity. In other words, you need to prove causation. Stating there was a delay or loss of productivity without establishing the cause-and-effect relationship (i.e, causation) provides no value because it does not support the production impact or time extension and, without either, there is no basis for additional compensation (even if you establish it should be deemed an excusable, compensable delay).
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
Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFDon’t expect a fast resolution to the Harmon Tower case in Las Vegas. The latest schedule sets trial for the construction defect claims in January 2014. Previously, these claims were going to be heard during the trial set to start in June 2013. Now the June trial will be over payment issues only.
Don’t expect the building to come down soon either. While CityCenter claims the building could come down in an earthquake, Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez had determined that as the structural testing was not random; its results cannot be extrapolated through the entire structure. As a result, CityCenter has elected to do more testing, holding off on demolishing the building. They are appealing Gonzalez’s order to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office
May 08, 2023 —
Alexander R. Moore - Kahana FeldKahana Feld is pleased to announce that Alexander R. Moore, Esq., has been promoted to Managing Partner of our Oakland office. Mr. Moore has been at Kahana Feld since 2021 and is a member of the construction defect and general liability practice groups.
Mr. Moore has over 23 years of experience representing individual and commercial clients in complex disputes arising out of construction contracts, construction defect allegations, premises liability matters, landlord-tenant disputes, and contractual disputes arising out of various business relationships involving financial services companies, technology companies, telecommunications companies, real estate brokerages, non-profits, and a range of small businesses. When not focused on litigation, Mr. Moore enjoys consulting on transactional matters including the development of construction and business contracts. He has extensive experience evaluating rights and obligations under construction contracts and related insurance programs. He also assists clients in the implementation of pre-litigation risk management strategies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexander R. Moore, Kahana FeldMr. Moore may be contacted at
amoore@kahanafeld.com
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
November 15, 2017 —
Jeff Dennis & Ivo Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPThe European Union (“EU”) has enacted a strict, comprehensive framework of security regulations aimed to protect its citizens. These regulations, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), provide a blueprint for a combination of required legal, technological and work habits within an organization. Although this is an EU regulation, the new laws will apply to any organization within or outside the EU that collects or processes data of EU citizens. Therefore, U.S. companies must analyze their data and processes to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary. A quickly-approaching deadline of May 25, 2018 must be met to avoid massive fines.
What is the GDPR?
In order to address the creation of social networking sites, cloud computing, and location-based services, the EU set in motion a process to implement a vigorous set of rules to ensure the right to personal data protection for all European citizens. In April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission adopted a new GDPR, which will take affect on May 25, 2018.
This GDPR will streamline cooperation between the data protection authorities on personal data issues allowing companies to deal with one authority - not each of the 28 EU member states. This will allow for quicker decisions by the data protection authorities and greatly reduce the red tape in both compliance and enforcement under the GDPR. This will also create a level playing field by forcing non-EU companies to comply with the same strict regulations - regardless of whether or not the company is established in the EU.
Territorial scope of the GDPR
The GDPR applies directly to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU - regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU. Additionally, there are specific provisions under the GDPR that apply to non-EU companies if their processing activities relate to (a) the offering of goods or services (irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required) or (b) monitoring the behavior of individuals within the EU. Therefore, all companies must determine whether they process or monitor information of EU citizens. If a company falls within one of these categories, compliance with the GDPR is mandatory.
What happens if a company fails to comply with the GDPR?
Failure to comply with the GDPR could subject a company to crushing administrative fines.
The supervisory authority has the power to impose administrative fines under the GDPR. The following violations and breaches would subject a company to administrative fines:
- Not adhering to the core principles of processing personal data,
- Breach of notification to EU citizens by controllers and processors,
- Wrongful transfer of personal data to non-EU countries,
- Breach of obligations regarding certification,
- Ignoring the mandates asserted by the supervisory authority,
- Breach by those responsible for impact assessment, and
- Wrongful processing of employee data.
The extent of the violation and type of personal data involved will dictate the severity of the administrative fines imposed on a company. For example, under the GDPR, a company could be subject to administrative fines up to 20,000,000 EUR, or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual revenue of the preceding financial year. Obviously, these fines would be financially crippling to any company.
Preparing for May 25, 2018
The May 25, 2018 deadline is fast approaching and preparing for full compliance with the GDPR is paramount. Simple steps should be taken to ensure compliance including to:
(1) Review and analyze data repositories for sensitive data,
(2) Perform an analysis/accounting of procedure for data collection, and
(3) Create an oversite committee dedicated to data activities and compliance.
Most importantly, however, is to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary, and strictly follow the requirements of the GDPR to protect from potentially massive fines.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner and as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”
August 07, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyIn a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court settled a split among the federal appellate circuits on whether appeal of a district court refusal to compel arbitration stays the underlying litigation in the district court.
Having been denied relief by the district court on its motion to compel arbitration, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §16(a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asked the district court to stay its proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. The district court refused, and the Ninth Circuit also declined to stay the lower court proceedings pending appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
