New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws
May 13, 2014 —
Marc Casarino and Lori Smith – White and Williams LLPA fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund.
In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and
Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity
June 10, 2024 —
Linda Poon - BloombergWe’re excited to share that the Bloomberg Green series Water Grab was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist. The series, which includes contributions from several CityLab writers and alums, explores how private investors are commandeering public water for profit at the expense of both the environment and less powerful communities.
Below is a sample of stories looking at how investors, private equity firms and Wall Street are taking advantage of the world’s scarce water supply. Read the full series here, which is now in front of the paywall.
Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Poon, Bloomberg
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Pandemic, Proposed Federal Privacy Regulation and the CCPA
November 02, 2020 —
Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer DillionThe U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation met recently to discuss considerations for implementing federal privacy laws. Not surprisingly, the main impetus to reevaluate a federal framework is the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with the greatly increased reliance on online working and school arrangements, as well as the need to share personal information for contact tracing and other efforts to weaken the pandemic.
While federal regulation of personal information has been proposed in the past, there are a few key issues that still remain unresolved. One is enforcement of the regulations. The issue is whether enforcement should be handled by the Federal Trade Commission or if the establishment of a new federal authority is needed to enforce privacy requirement violations. Other key outstanding issues include pre-emption of state rights and whether any regulations should include a private right of action.
Given that the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) is the most stringent state regulation addressing data privacy in the United States, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra participated as a witness in the recent Senate Hearing. He shared his opinions as to both federal pre-emption and the need for a private right of action. He recommended that the committee preclude federal regulation from pre-empting state laws, including the CCPA. He noted that individual states are in a better position to adapt and keep up with technological innovation, and that some states have also already implemented thorough privacy protections, such as Mississippi and Washington. With respect to the private right of action, he admitted his office can only do so much to enforce these regulations amongst California’s huge population of businesses and residents. His belief is that individual consumers need the ability to pursue their own remedies in court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer DillionMs. Whitehead may be contacted at
heather.whitehead@ndlf.com
Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice
February 06, 2023 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightVelazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor.
The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project.
High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Imposes Increased Disclosure Requirements On Defendants at the Beginning of Lawsuits
February 07, 2022 —
Craig Rokuson & Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, which amends Section 3101(f) of the Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) to require the automatic disclosure of insurance-related items within sixty days of the filing of an answer in a civil suit. For lawsuits pending as of the effective date of the Act, the disclosures required by Section 3101(f) must be provided by March 1, 2022.
Pursuant to amended Section 3101(f), defendants (including third-party defendants, cross-claim defendants, and counterclaim defendants) must provide the following information to plaintiffs within sixty days of answering the affirmative pleading, accompanied with a certification from both the defendant and his/her/their/its defense counsel that the disclosures are accurate and complete:
- Copies of all insurance policies that may be liable to satisfy a judgment in the lawsuit, including the insurance application.
- The contact information of any individuals responsible for adjusting the claim on each policy, including his/her/their phone number and email address. If a TPA is involved, his/her/their contact information must also be disclosed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition
May 17, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogReaders of this blog are familiar with the concept of the design immunity defense.
Codified at Government Code section 830.6, it provides in pertinent that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by a plan or design of a public improvement where the plan or design has been “approved in advance . . . by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved” if the trial or appellate court finds that there “is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor.”
In the next case, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case No. B293670 (January 29, 2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether the design immunity defense also serves as a defense to a claim that a public entity has a duty to warn of a dangerous condition on public property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix
July 30, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsConstruction contracts (preferably written ones) are near and dear to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. In a world where the contract is king, having a written construction agreement is a key component of any properly run construction project. However, even with the best construction contract there are claims (Murphy was an optimist after all).
When making these claims, we construction lawyers tend to plead both the breach of contract and quantum meruit (or in non lawyer speak- unjust enrichment) when drafting a complaint in a construction dispute. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal district court reminds us all that these two counts must be plead alternatively because they simply cannot exist in a lawsuit from beginning to end.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
