Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake
October 10, 2022 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordA temporary bridge is in place for Pine Island, Fla., after state officials mobilized crews to restore mainland access to barrier islands cut off when Hurricane Ian washed away roads and bridges last month.
President Joe Biden (D) joined Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Oct. 5 in touring the hardest-hit parts of the state, with the governor announcing the five-day emergency Pine Island project and plans to finish repair of the causeway to Sanibel Island by the end of October.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case
November 26, 2014 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogOn November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond.
Background
In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558).
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
Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case
February 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch.
In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied.
Read the full story...
Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change
August 26, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs July 1, 2019 approaches with its inevitable changes to the Virginia Code, I wanted to remind you once again that the statutory form for a Virginia mechanic’s lien will change as of that date.
HB2409 passed both houses of the General Assembly and has been signed by the Governor. This bill reconciled the language found in Virginia Code Sec. 43-4 with the various forms for general contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor/supplier forms found in later sections of the code. As you will see if you download the .pdf of the bill as signed, this involved some tweaks to 43-4 and some updates to the mechanic’s lien forms that are in the code. The recent Desai case from the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that such action was necessary.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails
January 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer prevailed in summary judgment, disposing of the insured's bad faith claim based upon the investigation of the loss. Nino v. State Farm Lloyds, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163993 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2014).
The insured filed a claim with State Farm for damage resulting from a hailstorm on March 29, 2012. An independent adjuster, Charles Crump, conducted an investigation on behalf of State Farm. Crump inspected the roof, where he noted prior repair to the roof, and found no covered damage to the roof as the result of the 2012 hailstorm. Crump found minimal damage to other parts of the house, totaling $2,311.75, which resulted in no payment after the deduction. Crump provided the insured with a printed copy of his damage estimate.
The insured then hired a public adjuster who found damage totaling $31,991.72, including $10,051.22 in roof repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill
May 11, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer Dillion"Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation?
WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT?
The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements.
First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
- Track the spread of COVID-19,
- Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
- Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected.
Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
- Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
- Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
- Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
- Describe its data retention policy, and
- Generally describe its data security measures.
Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information.
In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation.
Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis.
WHAT DATA IS COVERED?
Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information."
HOW IS IT ENFORCED?
Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state.
WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO?
If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others.
While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFTaishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. Claimed in a hearing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that when they sold about $8.5 million of contaminated drywall to Venture Supply Inc. of Virginia, that they had no awareness that the drywall would be sold in the United States. Joe Cyr, an attorney for Taisan told the court that “Venture Supply never said it was going to distribute the goods in Virginia.”
One of the judges on the three-judge panel, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, was skeptical of Taishan’s claim, asking, “it was packed and labeled for the Virginia market, isn’t that correct?” When asked by a judge if Taishan was trying to avoid accountability, Cyr said that Tiashan “has not said that it doesn’t want to be accountable for its drywall.” Taishan holds the position that claims against it should be arbitrated in the People’s Republic of China.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
