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
5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act
February 14, 2022 —
Richard W. Brown & Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On December 31, 2021, New York enacted the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (“CIDA”), requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs with “complete” information for any insurance policy through which a judgment could be satisfied, within sixty (60) days after serving an answer. The stated goal is to reduce delay tactics by compelling disclosures of all policies implicated by a claim as well as other claims, contracts, or agreements that may deplete available coverage or residual limits of policies that have already been eroded by other payments. The impact of CIDA’s disclosure requirements may be scaled back by proposed amendments currently pending before the New York state legislature.
1. What does CIDA Require?
CIDA requires the automatic disclosure of insurance information to plaintiffs. New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) 3101(f) permits civil discovery of the contents of existing insurance agreements by which an insurer may be liable for all or part of a judgment. However, CIDA amends the CPLR to mandate that defendants must automatically disclose the following information in all pending cases starting March 1, 2022, or within sixty (60) days of filing an answer to a complaint going forward:
- Complete copy of all insurance policies that are available to satisfy all or part of a potential judgment.
- This includes Primary, Excess, and Umbrella policies.
- The relevant applications for insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage
November 02, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA broker who assisted the insureds in procuring a homeowners policy had no duty to advise the insureds to secure additional flood coverage. Ring v. Meeker Sharkey Assocs., LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3458 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. Sept.26, 2017).
The insureds owned two beachfront properties that were located in a designated flood zone. They secured homeowners and flood insurance through Meeker's predecessor. Subsequently, Meeker became the insureds' homeowners insurance broker while Willis, N.A. was their flood insurance broker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes
September 01, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThis is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.
In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.
The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards
May 13, 2024 —
Toll BrothersFREEHOLD, N.J., May 07, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --
Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL), the nation's leading builder of luxury homes, today announced that the Company's New Jersey Division was honored with six awards at the 2024 Fabulous Achievements in Marketing Excellence (FAME) Awards held at South Gate Manor in Freehold, New Jersey.
Presented by the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey, the FAME Awards honor home builders of the New Jersey Builders Associations who have made major contributions to the home building industry. The awards span categories from product and design to advertising, marketing, and professional achievements. Toll Brothers was selected as the winner in the following categories:
For more information on Toll Brothers communities in New Jersey, visit
TollBrothers.com/NewJersey.
About Toll Brothers
Toll Brothers, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company, is¬ the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The Company was founded 57 years ago in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL." The Company serves first-time, move-up, empty-nester, active-adult, and second-home buyers, as well as urban and suburban renters. Toll Brothers builds in over 60 markets in 24 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as in the District of Columbia. The Company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development, smart home technology, and landscape subsidiaries. The Company also develops master-planned and golf course communities as well as operates its own lumber distribution, house component assembly, and manufacturing operations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements
May 03, 2017 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn the recent Arizona Court of Appeals case Earle Investments, LLC v. Southern Desert Medical Center Partners, 762 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 12 (2017), the Court of Appeals addressed the question of the scope of a subordination agreement signed by the property owner (Lessor/Landlord) at the request of the Lessee/Tenant and Lessee/Tenant’s Lender. In general, by subordination, Party No. 1 with a higher/better lien priority agrees to allow Party No. 2 (usually a lender providing construction funds for the overall betterment of the property) to get a lien position in front of Party No. 1. Party No. 1 presumably believes the switch of lien position in return for someone else paying for the property improvements will benefit Party No. 1 in the long run by resulting in an increase in the value of Party No. 1’s position.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & WilmerMr. Parker may be contacted at
kparker@swlaw.com
A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA post on The Buckner Blog suggests that “construction defects” are the scariest words for architects, engineers, and contractors. With the possible outcomes of a damaged reputation and astronomical costs, it’s not a surprise. Further, builders are using techniques that “have yet to be tested in real application over time.” As a result, “whoever has the deepest pockets or the most to lose becomes the primary target.”
While a commercial general liability policy might pay for damage caused by a construction defect, the post notes that “it does not, however, cover the costs to remedy your work.” That cost could be “greater than the actual property damages incurred.”
The post recommends a combination of transferring risk and risk control In transferring risk, the builder uses “indemnification and hold harmless agreements as well as inditional insured requirements in their construction contracts.” They advise to “request coverage as an additional insured on a primary basis.”
And then there’s risk control. “Work only with architects, engineers and contactors who have good reputations and a track record of performance. Don’t cut corners.” By some careful planning, builders might “sleep better at night.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More
January 23, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the
mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how
careful contract drafting is key.
In the
most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows.
The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date.
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
