Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky
March 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States illustrates the difficulties a contractor may face when pursuing a claim before a Contracting Officer. After nearly 10 years of litigation, the court found that the contractor’s claim to the Contracting Officer did not contain enough detail to allow the claim to proceed. That’s a lot of time and resources wasted on a claim that was dead from the start.
K-Con was awarded a $582,000 job to design and build a Coast Guard support building in Michigan. K-Con was unable to complete the project by the finish date and the Coast Guard assessed liquidated damages of $109,554. K-Con contested the assessment of liquidated damages by submitting a one paragraph letter asserting that it was not the sole cause of the alleged delays; that the government was at fault for the delay; and the liquidated damages were an impermissible penalty. The Contracting Officer ultimately denied K-Con’s claim and K-Con appealed to the Court of Claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation
October 18, 2021 —
Steven A. Neeley - Construction ExecutiveIn today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year.
Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at
steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!
April 02, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Newport Beach Partner Morgan Stiefel and Associate Brandon Cook obtained a defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their subcontractor client.
This lawsuit stemmed from a claim made by Plaintiff for eye injuries arising out of claimed negligence and strict liability associated with our client’s performance of a sandblasting job at a construction site adjacent to Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges that while she was in her backyard, sand hit her in the eyes at a high velocity speed, resulting in permanent damage to her eyes.
We argued our clients took all necessary safety precautions in the performance of this job, and Plaintiff’s eye irritation symptoms could not have been caused by our client. All of her alleged injuries were either pre-existing or could be explained by circumstances other than our client’s actions. Through expert testimony and our arguments, we were able to show the jury that Plaintiff lied about the sand entering her eyes at a high velocity and her symptoms being caused by our clients’ performance of the sandblasting job.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves
April 17, 2019 —
Ivo G. Danielle – Newmeyer & DillionCybersecurity breaches involving law firms are on the rise with each passing year. Law firms are prime targets for cyber criminals seeking confidential and sensitive information because of the various types of legal work that law firms normally handle for their clients. Whether it be mergers and acquisitions, the use of intellectual property, purchase agreements, bankruptcy or even litigation involving divorce, law firms are a rich depository for highly confidential and sensitive information. As a result, law firms must employ comprehensive security measures to protect themselves from security breaches or risk being on the losing end of a costly malpractice claim, and suffer severe reputational harm.
Law Firms Continue To Be Targeted By Cybercriminals
According to the American Bar Association ("ABA") 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report, 23% of the law firms who participated in the survey reported that their law firm experienced a data breach. Although this may be just a 1% increase from the 22% who reported a breach in 2017, it is important to understand that this is an increase of 8% from the stable percentages reported from 2013 through 2016.1 The 2018 survey report also revealed that security breaches fluctuated with firm size – 14% for solo law firms, 24% for firms employing 2-9 attorneys, approximately 24% for firms with 10-49 attorneys, 42% for firms with 50-99 attorneys, and approximately 31% for those firms employing 100 or more attorneys.
Latest Law Firm Security Breaches
The notorious criminal group called "The Dark Overlord" has a history of committing data breaches of high profile companies such as Gorilla Glue, Netflix, Larson Studios, multiple healthcare companies, and Little Red Door Cancer Agency. Their goal is simple – steal sensitive information and then extort payment from the victims by threatening to release the sensitive information to the public.
On December 31, 2018, this cybercriminal group announced to the world that they had acquired 18,000 documents containing highly sensitive legal information related to insurance based litigation connected to the 9/11 tragedy. The stolen information was the attorney/client property of Lloyd's of London, Silverstein Properties, and Hiscox Syndicates, Ltd. In its announcement, The Dark Overlord boasted that they were in possession of client sensitive information, such as: "emails; retainer agreements; non-disclosure agreements; settlements, litigation strategies; liability analysis; defense formation; collection of expert witness testimonies; communication with government officials in countries all over the world; voice mails; dealings with the FBI, USDOJ, DOD, confidential communications, and so much more."
Subsequent to the data breach, The Dark Overlord announced to the public that they designed a compensation plan that would allow for public crowd-funding for its organization to permit the public to view the stolen information in exchange for bitcoin payment. The more public funding it receives, the more stolen sensitive information will be unlocked and released to the public. It is estimated that this cybercriminal group already distributed information to the public on two separate occasions during the month of January 2019.
High profile cybersecurity breaches of law firms is nothing new – for example, the infamous Panama Papers breach, where cybercriminals leaked 11.5 million documents exposing the shadowy business of setting up offshore corporations as tax shelters for businesses, celebrities, and politicians - and the infamous Petya Malware attack which resulted in a digital lockdown of one of the world's largest law firms, DLA Piper. However, despite the infrequency of publicized cyber-attacks of law firms by the media, the FBI has recently announced that law firms should expect an increase in security attacks by cybercriminals because law firms are now viewed as "one-stop shops" for cybercriminals. Therefore, in order to combat the inevitable increase in cyber-attacks, law firms must get prepared.
How Law Firms Can Protect Themselves
All law firms will agree that the most serious consequence of a security breach for their firm would be the unauthorized access to sensitive client data. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.1 and 1.62 and related Comments, require an attorney to take competent and reasonable measures to safeguard information relating to their clients. This duty to "safeguard' information imposes a significant challenge to firms when using technology in connection with protecting client information because most law firms are not savvy with technology and lack proper cyber security training.
In order for a law firm to protect itself from security breaches and inadvertently violate its duty of safeguarding a client's sensitive information, it is important to take the following actions:
- Start by taking an inventory and risk assessment of the firm to determine what needs to be protected – the inventory should include both technology and data;
- Develop, implement and maintain an appropriate cybersecurity program that complies with applicable ethical and legal obligations;
- Ensure the cybersecurity program addresses people, policies and procedures, and technology. The cybersecurity program must designate an individual or a group to be in charge and coordinate security;
- Develop an incident response plan scaled to the size of the firm;
- Continually train staff and attorneys to identify and understand potential cybersecurity threats;
- Consider implementing a third-party assessment of firm's cybersecurity program and policies;
- Purchase cyber liability for insurance which not only covers first party losses to law firms (like lost productivity, data restoration, and legal expenses) but also liability protection to third parties;
- Implement authentication and access controls for network, computers and mobile devices used by the firm's staff and attorneys;
- Consider the use of full-drive encryption for computers and mobile devices;
- Have staff and attorneys avoid and/or limit the use of public WiFi when working remotely; and
- Create a disaster recovery plan to backup all data in the event of a cyber-attack or natural catastrophe.
Continually reviewing, implementing, training and updating a firm's cybersecurity program and protocols will help safeguard sensitive and confidential client information and/or data. No law firm wants to be the next data breach headline – so take the necessary steps to avoid a potential disaster.
1 Past ABA Legal Technology Surveys reported 14% in 2016, 15% in 2015, 14% in 2014 and 15% in 2013.
2 On November 1, 2018, California adopted ethics rules patterned after the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
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 almost 35 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 law, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, 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
Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner
September 30, 2024 —
Lisa M. Rolle, Erin O’Dea, Nicole Verzillo - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo won motion for summary judgment in a premises liability matter brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in a pothole on the common driveway of five abutting properties and sustained an injury. The firm represented one of the multiple property owners. Traub Lieberman moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims against the firm’s client should be dismissed as they did not own, operate, control or make special use of the driveway where the incident occurred. The firm also asserted that the alleged condition of the driveway that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s accident was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm also moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against them, contending that there was no evidence of negligence on behalf of the firm’s client. As such, the court found that the defect was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm secured dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the firm’s clients and against all moving and non-moving Defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman,
Erin O’Dea, Traub Lieberman and
Nicole Verzillo, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Ms. O'Dea may be contacted at eodea@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Verzillo may be contacted at nverzillo@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court
April 03, 2019 —
Graham C. Mills - Newmeyer & DillionA recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere.
Background on the Case
City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant.
The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & DillionMr. Mills may be contacted at
graham.mills@ndlf.com
Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that it costs more to build a green home, however, builder’s experience with green techniques reduces costs.
According to McGraw Hill Construction survey data (as quoted by Eye on Housing), “the incremental cost for builders to construct green homes was 8% in 2013. For remodelers, green projects raised costs by 9% on average.” Furthermore, “McGraw Hill’s analysis found that the cost to build green varied to some degree by the amount of green construction undertaken.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
January 27, 2010 —
Steven M. CvitanovicIn the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.
In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.
Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
