Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires
November 21, 2017 —
Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOriginally published by CDJ on February 16, 2017
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages.
In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Late Notice Defense Fails on Summary Judgment
December 13, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim because the insurer did not provide notice "as soon as practicable" was denied. Vintage Hospitality Group LLC v. Nat'l Trust Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192651 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021).
Vintage owned hotels, one of which was struck by a severe hailstorm on July 21, 2018. Vintage was not aware of roof damage until two months after the storm, and did not make the connection between the hailstorm and roof damage until February 2020, when it reported the damage to National. The claim was denied because it was not reported "as soon as practicable" as required by the policy.
Vintage sued and National moved for summary judgment.
Vintage did not notice the leaks until September 2018. The focus was on fixing the leaks, and connection to the hailstorm did not register. The leaks persisted over the next year and a half. A construction company was called in to evaluate the leaking roof. The construction company advised that the roof had experienced previous hail damage which was causing the leaks. At this point, Vintage connected the damage to the hailstorm. A claim was promptly submitted to National, which denied the claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Shares Fall on Wind-Down Measure
March 12, 2014 —
Clea Benson and Cheyenne Hopkins – BloombergCommon shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac experienced their biggest intraday drop in 10 months after leaders of the Senate Banking Committee announced plans to eliminate the companies in a new bill.
Fannie Mae shares tumbled as much as 44 percent, paring the losses to 31 percent to close in New York at $4.03, after Edwin Groshans, a managing director at Washington-based equity research firm Height Analytics LLC, described the proposal as holder-negative. Freddie Mac fell 27 percent to close at $4.04. Preferred shares also dropped, some by as much as 12 percent.
The bipartisan measure, drafted with input from President Barack Obama’s administration, would replace the U.S.-owned mortgage financiers with government bond insurance that would kick in only after private capital suffered losses of at least 10 percent, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson and Senator Mike Crapo said in a statement today. The bill would require most borrowers to make down payments of at least 5 percent.
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Ms. Hopkins may be contacted at chopkins19@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clea Benson and Cheyenne Hopkins, Bloomberg
Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFU.S. Senator Robert Mendendez of New Jersey, “has called on government officials to speed up the way home rebuilding aid is reaching thousands of New Jersey victims of Superstorm Sandy,” according to CBS New York. Mendendez stated that out of the 12,000 people who have received “preliminary approval for aid” under New Jersey’s “Reconstruction, Elevation and Mitigation program,” only “2,700 have been told they can begin construction.” The storm occurred more than sixteen months ago.
“Part of the problem,” Mendendez told CBS New York, “has been that state officials have placed federally required environmental and historic preservation reviews at the end of the lengthy aid application process. That delays rebuilding because federal rules allow reconstruction work to begin once those reviews are completed.”
CBS New York reported that the state announced that those “using their own contractors to rebuild homes can request 50 percent of their grant in advance under the change, which went into effect Monday.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach
November 21, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & J. Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion LLPCybersecurity is a growing concern for today's businesses. While it's always advisable to take whatever action possible to avoid a cybersecurity breach, no security measures can be one hundred percent perfect, and malicious actors are always innovating and trying to find new security flaws. The implementation of new technology brings with it new opportunities, but also potentially new vulnerabilities. And hackers have one major advantage – those working to defend against cyber-attacks have to try to find and fix every potential exploit, whereas those on the other side only need to find one. As demonstrated by recent high-profile breaches at Google and Facebook, even massive tech companies with access to vast financial resources and top engineering talent can still fall prey to cyber-attacks. Therefore, understanding how to respond to a breach is just as critical to a company's cybersecurity plan as attempting to prevent one. Below are a few solid tips on how to react when an organization's cybersecurity has been compromised.
Plan in Advance
The best response to a cybersecurity breach begins before the breach ever happens. A written incident response plan is of paramount importance. In the immediate aftermath of a cybersecurity breach, people will be scared and stressed. In those circumstances, they will be more likely to be able to respond effectively if there is a plan laid out for them and they have received training on how to follow that plan. Make sure that employees are trained on the parts of the plan that are relevant to them. Most may only need to know who to report to if they suspect a breach may have occurred, while those who will be involved in the breach response will need more in-depth training. The plan should also be updated regularly to account for staffing changes, new technology, and the evolving legal landscape. The law may also require a plan for responding to cybersecurity breaches, depending on the jurisdiction.
Call Your Lawyer- Early and Often
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, attorneys are critical in responding to a cybersecurity breach. The most obvious reason is to advise clients on their legal obligations and potential liability – and this is indeed an important function. The patchwork of federal and state regulations governing cybersecurity is something laypeople – and even non-specialized attorneys – should navigate with caution. Of equal importance is the preservation of confidential communication under the attorney-client privilege. The presence of an attorney helps to improve the security of information surrounding the response to the breach because correspondence with that attorney is privileged, allowing candid evaluation of the breach. The ability to assert attorney-client privilege regarding an internal investigation and response can be quite useful in the event of a later external investigation or litigation.
To Disclose or Not to Disclose?
An important question that needs to be asked in the wake of a cybersecurity breach is whether the incident must be disclosed, and if so, when, how, and to whom should such disclosures be made? While many understandably wish that their mistakes and failures will never see the light of day, there are also many people who will want to know when a company's cybersecurity has been breached. Shareholders want to know – and may have a right to know – if such a breach has harmed the business. Consumers want to know if their personal information has been compromised so that they can protect against identity theft. Furthermore, state breach notification laws may mandate certain disclosures to consumers depending on facts surrounding the breach. Legal requirements from states, the federal government, and even foreign entities may also require companies to provide notices to one or more regulatory agencies.
An attorney can advise on whether a company is legally required to provide any notice in the aftermath of a data breach, but even though notice may not be a legal requirement in a particular set of circumstances, it may still be prudent to give it anyway. Google decided not to disclose the recent breach of data from its Google+ service to avoid a PR and regulatory backlash, but the fact that it had happened eventually leaked out anyway. Even though legal experts have opined in the aftermath that Google likely was not obligated to disclose the breach, the fact that it did not caused exactly what Google attempted to avoid, but with magnified effect. "Google Experiences Consumer Data Breach" may not have been a good headline, but "Google Hides Consumer Data Breach" was a worse one.
Remember: Protection Is Key
No company wants a cybersecurity breach, but past experience has increasingly demonstrated that this is not a question of "if" but rather one of "when" and "how bad." Planning ahead and knowing what to do when a data breach does happen can ensure that an organization bounces back from a breach as smoothly and painlessly as possible.
Scott Satkin and Kyle Janecek 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 Kyle at kyle.jancecek@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 cybersecurity, 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
Carbon Sequestration Can Combat Global Warming, Sometimes in Unexpected Ways
April 02, 2024 —
Michael S. McDonough, Robert A. James & Amanda G. Halter - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogWhether by land, by sea or through human innovation, carbon sequestration is likely coming to (or already happening in) a destination near you. As our planet, overdosed on greenhouse gases, battles climate disasters, a logical solution is to simply stop pumping carbon dioxide into the air. Legislation worldwide is aimed at that target, but reducing output alone may not be enough. There are still billions of tons of extra CO2 already in the atmosphere—this crossroads is where sequestration comes into play.
Carbon sequestration is exactly what it sounds like—the storage of CO2. Once carbon is sucked out of the air, or in some cases pulled directly from industrial smokestacks, sequestration can be undertaken in a lot of different ways. Carbon storage happens naturally, when forests and oceans absorb and convert CO2 into organic matter, but carbon dioxide can also be artificially injected into deep underground rock formations (or wells), or in some cases technological approaches repurpose carbon into a resource like concrete, or as a catalyst in a closed-loop industrial system. However it’s accomplished, the point of sequestration is to stabilize carbon and ensure it doesn’t creep back into our atmosphere. Researchers, like those at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, now say that CO2 removal is vital to keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (past that threshold, climate change could reach catastrophic levels). A 2023 University of Oxford study estimated that, currently, about two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are being removed each year, primarily through land management (i.e., planting trees), and suggested that we need to double that amount to avoid dangerous global warming levels.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas
June 08, 2020 —
Kristopher M. Stockberger - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois' Labor & Employment Blog1. The Devil’s in the Details
Under Texas law, for a non-compete agreement to be enforceable, it must meet strict requirements as to timing, geography, and the type of conduct that it prohibits. While courts have enforced agreements for between one and two years, your situation could be subject to a shorter time period. If the geographical scope of the agreement is too broad or vague, that could render the agreement unenforceable. Also, the type of conduct prohibited by your agreement should be tied to the specifics of your business, because categorical barriers to other employment are often not enforced. If an employer knowingly instructs an employee to enter an overbroad non-compete agreement, the employer runs the risk of paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees.
2. Timing on the Front End
If an employee has been with an employer for years and the employer suddenly decides to have her sign a non-compete without any other meaningful change in the employee’s role, then the agreement will probably not be enforceable, unless the employee receives “consideration.” In this context, consideration is something of value, other than money or benefits, which the law deems to warrant protection by a non-compete agreement. For example, allowing an employee to learn the secret formula to Coca-Cola or to gain access to an employer’s confidential financials constitutes legally sufficient consideration given to an employee in exchange for the employee’s promises in a non-compete agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristopher M. Stockberger, Lewis BrisboisMr. Stockberger may be contacted at
Kris.Stockberger@lewisbrisbois.com
