Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared
February 22, 2021 —
Joshua Bevitz - Newmeyer DillionState data privacy laws, which are far from uniform, are on the rise. To address that, as well the public’s increasing concern with protecting their private information, it is expected that there will be a serious effort in Congress this year to enact federal data privacy legislation. Here is what you need to know to ensure your business is ready for potential federal regulation.
Applicable State Laws
As is widely known, some states have recently enacted data privacy legislation to protect consumers. For example, in early 2020, California’s new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), took effect, giving consumers more discretion regarding over how companies share and use their personal information. (For years, California already had in place its Database Security Breach Notification Act.) More recently, California enacted the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act (CPRA), which amends and strengthens the CCPA. Other states, such as Maine, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted their own data privacy legislation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Bevitz, Newmeyer DillionMr. Bevitz may be contacted at
joshua.bevitz@ndlf.com
Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems
October 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “[t]he Penn Avenue reconstruction project in Garfield, described as ‘a comedy of errors’ by one neighborhood leader, remains months behind schedule and has gone well over budget.”
The $4.7 million construction budget has increased “by at least $800,000,” according to the Pittsburgh post-Gazette. Problems included the underground utilities not on maps or mapped inaccurately, water lines breaking, and old streetcar tracks were discovered to have contaminated soil.
Rick Swartz, executive director of the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp., told the Gazette that the project has been “plagued with problems and poor communication from the very start.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCurrent arguments over the claims made by LAX that Runway 25L was built in a defective manner by Tutor-Saliba/O&G Industries are hinging over whether the airport knew the runway was defective less than four years after the construction was completed. The runway was built almost five years ago, and Tutor-Saliba is claiming that Los Angeles World Airports has delayed too long in making a construction defect complaint. Tutor-Saliba is not conceding that the runway is defective, only that if it were, the airport would have known it earlier.
Los Angeles World Airports, which operates LAX, is not commenting on the matter, but Robert Span, an aviation attorney at Steinbrecher & Span, told the Daily Breeze that while “there is a four year statute of limitations for dealing with construction defects, but that’s for what they called patent defects,” and that “there’s a 10-year statute of limitations for construction projects where the defect that is alleged is called latent — something that would not be readily apparent.”
Tim Pierce, a construction attorney at K&L Gates LLP described it as “a common defense,” though he said it is “raised in most cases and only works in some.”
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
Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations
November 01, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project.
Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you!
In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
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
Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues
August 16, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment, allowing an appraisal to go forward even with outstanding coverage issues in dispute. DC Plastic Products Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2021 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 95908 (D. N.J. May 19, 2021).
DC Plastic's property was damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Claims submitted to Westchester resulted in a payment of $951,102.89 to DC Plastic. The parties disagreed on whether further payments were due. In 2017, DC Plastic sued Westchester for additional payments. DC Plastic moved to compel an appraisal for its claims, requesting that the court appoint an umpire for the appraisal process. Westchester cross-moved to dismiss the case in its entirety.
DC Plastic's complaint asked that the court appoint an umpire. The policy stated if the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, each party would select an appraiser, who would then agree upon an umpire. If they could not agree, either party could request the court to appoint the umpire. Therefore, the court was authorised to select the umpire here.
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
Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here
June 05, 2017 —
Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News AlertIt is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT
The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
- Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
- Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
- Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
- Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017
Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows:
(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or 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
Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”
March 04, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn December 3, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor’s views on the contested issues whether discharges to groundwater are subject to an he National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and whether there is an “ongoing violation” of the Clean Water Act for Citizen Suit jurisdiction when the source of the pipeline spill has been fixed, yet not all pollutants have been cleaned up.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
