Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline
June 07, 2021 —
J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer DillionRecently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid?
What happened to Colonial Pipeline?
Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised.
Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer
October 12, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesProperty insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer.
By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss.
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
DC Wins Largest-Ever Civil Penalty in US Housing Discrimination Suit
November 15, 2022 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergThree real estate companies operating in Washington, DC, will pay record-breaking penalties in a suit brought by the city for illegally discriminating against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers and other forms of housing assistance.
The attorney general for the District of Columbia, Karl Racine, announced on Thursday a settlement for $10 million. While fair housing cases involving lenders have resulted in larger compensation payouts, $10 million is the largest civil penalty ever levied in a housing discrimination case.
In 2020, the city sued several entities — DARO Management Services, DARO Realty and New York-based parent company Infinity Real Estate, as well as several executives — over housing practices in the District. DARO Management operates and rents some 1,200 residential units in more than a dozen apartment buildings spread across Wards 1, 2 and 3, which include DC’s more affluent areas. (DARO Realty owns the properties, DARO Management operates them, and Infinity owns both affiliates.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way
July 05, 2021 —
Christopher J. Brasco & Matthew D. Baker - ConsensusDocsCritical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects.
Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and
Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
Mr. Brasco may be contacted at cbrasco@watttieder.com
Mr. Baker may be contacted at mbaker@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hard to Believe It, Construction Law Musings is 16
January 07, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn this date back in 2008 (wow, that seems so long ago), I began Construction Law Musings on the Blogger platform with a brief announcement. Little did I know that this corner of the internet (or is it Blawgosphere?) would still be around in 2024!
In the time since I made that short entry 16 years ago (I know, I can’t believe it either), I’ve met several construction lawyers here in Virginia who refer to me as the “blog guy.” To be recognized for the work I do here at Construction Law Musings, something that benefits me (and I hope the readers), and which I do for the fun of it, is an honor.
The blog has since taken on a life of its own in many respects, allowing me to meet some of the great construction pros who have provided a guest post or two for Musings and added their different perspectives. Musings also kept me up on at least most of the trends in Virginia construction law by making me post consistently (though sometimes less consistently than others). Now, around 975 posts and 16 years later, I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed and effort has been put into what started on a whim and the plan that I’d post thoughts on the legal landscape and construction from the perspective of a Virginia construction lawyer.
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
Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion
June 21, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiLoss of the insured's home caused by a renter who demolished the home was covered under the homeowner's policy. Fisher v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 Idaho LEXIS 143 (Idaho May 26, 2017).
The insured, Shammie L. Fisher, entered a Purchase Agreement to sell her home to Ron Reynoso. The purchase of the property was contingent upon Reynoso obtaining financing. Before completing the purchase, he would lease the property. The Agreement stated, "Buyer intends to make certain improvements to the property upon possession, with the intent to sell the property for a profit."
Within two months of renting the property to Reynoso, Fisher learned that he had demolished the entire house down to the foundation. He then ceased work and left. Fisher made a claim under her policy, but Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company denied coverage based upon the exclusion for faulty, inadequate or defective work. When Fisher sued, the trial court granted summary judgment to Garrison.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021
February 01, 2021 —
Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.SUMMARY
Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day.
In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19.
ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE
On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage
May 18, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court (No. S244737, filed 4/6/20) (Montrose III), the California Supreme Court held that, as between excess insurers at differing levels of coverage, a rule of “vertical exhaustion” or “elective stacking” applies, whereby the insured may access any excess policy once it has exhausted other excess policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The Court limited the rule to excess insurance, stating that “[b]ecause the question is not presented here, we do not decide when or whether an insured may access excess policies before all primary insurance covering all relevant policy periods has been exhausted.”
Montrose manufactured the insecticide DDT in Torrance from 1947 to 1982. In 1990, the state and federal governments sued Montrose for environmental contamination and Montrose entered into partial consent decrees agreeing to pay for cleanup. Montrose claimed to have expended in excess of $100 million doing so, and asserted that its future liability could exceed that amount.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
