Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022
December 27, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsGov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws.
California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers
On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests.
Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Changes to Judicial Selection in Mexico Create a New Case for Contractual ADR Provisions
November 25, 2024 —
Juan Pablo Sandoval - The Dispute ResolverThe Mexican Congress recently discussed and approved a Constitutional Amendment called the “Judiciary Amendment” which was ironically published in the Official Gazette on September 15, 2024, the day before Mexican Independence Day.
With this Judiciary Amendment, the Mexican Congress determined that Federal Judges, Federal Magisters and the Ministers of the Supreme Court will now be elected through direct and popular election. Before the Judiciary Amendment, Federal Judges and Magisters used to have a judicial career; many of them started as law clerks and were promoted step by step until becoming Judge or Magister.
Ministers of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Senate through an election of three candidates designated by the President.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Juan Pablo Sandoval, COMAD, S.C.Mr. Sandoval may be contacted at
jpsandoval@comad.com.mx
Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August
September 10, 2014 —
Noah Buhayar - BloombergAn earthquake that struck the California wine country north of San Francisco and flooding in the U.S. last month caused more than $4 billion in economic losses, according insurance broker Aon Plc. (AON)
A 6.0-magnitude temblor shook the city of Napa on Aug. 24, damaging more than 1,100 buildings, injuring at least 258 people and causing about $2 billion in economic damages, the London-based broker said today in a report. Insured losses are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, because of the below-average extent of coverage, Aon said.
“Residential earthquake insurance penetration rates have gradually lowered in California during the past two decades from 33 percent in 1996 to roughly 10 percent today,” Steve Bowen, associate director and meteorologist for Aon Benfield Impact Forecasting, said in a statement. The Napa quake “serves as a reminder of the unpredictability and costly impacts.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Noah Buhayar, BloombergMr. Buhayar may be contacted at
nbuhayar@bloomberg.net
Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period
September 09, 2019 —
Christopher Raney - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim.
The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:
In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.
The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Raney may be contacted at
craney@grsm.com
Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform
January 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOn January 6th, Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported that Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has asked Colorado legislators “to pass a reform law that will make it easier to build condos without fear of getting sued.” Hancock is one of several mayors “to advocate for a construction defects reform proposal that was killed by Democrats in a committee last year.”
The problem, Sealover notes, is that only “2 percent of new housing in the state is multifamily units made for ownership—far lower than the 20 to 25 percent of such housing stock in other states represented by condos.”
There is some dissent as to whether reforming construction defect laws is the solution to the housing problem: “Taking away rights of homeowners to get shoddy construction fixed in what is likely the most expensive purchase in their life is not the way to fix the lack of affordable housing,” Lynea Hansen, spokeswoman for a group of construction defect homeowners told Sealover.
Furthermore, on January 7th, Sealover reported that Democrats “expressed skepticism” about a need to reform the laws, saying “they need more data on what is causing owner-occupied multifamily housing to be such a small part of the new housing market.” Moreover, Senate President-elect Morgan Carroll stated that she “wants to look into issues like why it is so hard to get insurance for building condominiums or examine why some areas of Colorado are seeing condo development and others aren’t.”
Read the full story, January 6th article...
Read the full story, January 7th article... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?
September 09, 2019 —
Kyle Janecek and Jeff Dennis – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia, for better or for worse, has a reputation as being a trendsetter, and has taken the lead in the United States by passing the "California Consumer Privacy Act," or "CCPA." This massive law has been on the books since 2018, but hasn't taken effect yet. However, the timeframe for businesses to be in compliance is rapidly diminishing. Currently, there are less than five months for businesses to (a) familiarize themselves with what the law requires; (b) determine how and if they are affected by the law; and (c) determine how to be in compliance with the law's demands. Right now, companies aren't making a rush to become CCPA compliant, but this is a mistake. Below are a few of the misconceptions that businesses have, as well as the realities.
MISCONCEPTION 1: It doesn't apply to my company.
For many businesses, it will apply. The baseline of the CCPA is: (1) does the business do anything with California residents (including employees); (2) is it for-profit; and (3) it either has $25 million annual revenue, "sells" 50,000 pieces of personal information or receives 50% or more of its revenue from personal information.
It does not matter if the business is in Nevada, Arizona, Texas or Delaware. So long as there is some connection to Californian residents, exists to make a profit, and otherwise satisfies either the profit, volume, or revenue percentage requirements, it applies. On that note, even if a business does not sell personal information, it does not mean it does not "sell" personal information under the law, as it includes any exchange of personal information for valuable consideration, such as the exchange of consumer data between companies, or the sale of information to a University for study.
MISCONCEPTION 2: The Federal Government will stop it.
One of the main reasons we have the CCPA is because the Federal Government has not acted on this issue. Furthermore, there is a high likelihood that any Federal law will not be substantially different from the CCPA, keeping the core principles in place. It's also unlikely that such a law will take effect and be passed in the remaining five months before the CCPA begins enforcement. Companies must accept that ideals of transparency, choice, consent and reasonable security as they relate to consumers' personal information are here to stay.
MISCONCEPTION 3: California is still changing the law, so I should wait.
California is still in the process of fine-tuning the CCPA, but this is no reason to wait. Fixes to questions arising regarding the CCPA have come out piecemeal, and continued changes, including expansions are likely. For example, employees were previously not addressed specifically within the CCPA, but are being addressed in the planned AB 25, excluding employees from some of the CCPA's protections. Conversely, there have also been planned provisions to expand on the protections and enforcement mechanisms of the CCPA, including a broad and expansive private right of action to permit individuals to sue for technical violations of the statute, like having to wait too long for a response to the demand, even if no actual damage is suffered. Again, the foundational requirements of the CCPA will not change via amendment – so companies should act now.
MISCONCEPTION 4: It's too expensive.
Actually no. Many of the basic actions are not cost-prohibitive, and are actions a business would want to do anyways: (a) Employee training to avoid data breaches and how to respond to user requests; (b) data mapping to quickly find, access, and arrange protections for consumer data; and (c) ensuring you have reasonable cyber security. This can even be turned into a competitive advantage, as consumers increasingly value companies that share their interests, including their privacy.
A compliance mistake could be extraordinarily costly. Currently, a violation for statutory violations of the CCPA can carry a penalty between $2,500 to $7,500 per individual violation. Furthermore, there is a private right of action with statutory damages of $100 to $750 per individual violation that could quickly balloon to exceed $5 million at a minimum, and invites class action/lawsuits for a data breach.
While this is true of almost every legal risk, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The penalties on the higher end of the spectrum are for willful violations, and attempts to comply with the law can act to curb potential risks.
What Should I Do?
If you feel CCPA compliance is important to your business, and decide to prepare for the CCPA with us, our firm has created a 90-day CCPA compliance program where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, without breaking the bank. Let us provide you a free initial consultation to see if our CCPA compliance program works for you.
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 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.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.
Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”
The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”
During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”
Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAfter storms damaged homes in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, the state’s Attorney General, warned consumers “to be cautious and on alert for scammers trying to take advantage of people in need of assistance.” Ms. Madigan noted that home repair scammers go into areas with storm damage convince homeowners to pay more than they should to repair storm damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
