Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders
May 11, 2020 —
Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionFor years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims.
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and
James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA/VOSH Roundup
August 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsIn an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement.
In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty.
The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level.
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
Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments
January 09, 2023 —
Lara Degenhart Cassidy & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Fourth Circuit recently affirmed insurance coverage for a South Carolina policyholder based on the “axiomatic principle” that an insurer which fails to fully and fairly articulate its potential coverage defenses in a reservation of rights letter loses the right to contest coverage on those grounds.
Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owner’s Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 19-2009, 2022 WL 17592121 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2017)). More particularly, in Stoneledge, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam a South Carolina District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association that had successfully sued its general contractors for construction defects and was seeking to recover the damages owed from the contractors’ insurers. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the insurers’ vague reservation of rights letters failed to reserve the defenses on which the insurers purported to deny coverage.
The question before the court in Stoneledge was whether the two insurers that had each agreed to defend their respective general-contractor insureds in the homeowner association’s underlying litigation had sufficiently informed their policyholders of their coverage positions. Specifically, the court considered whether the insurers provided notice of their intention to challenge coverage on specific bases and explained why those bases applied in their respective reservation of rights letters. Both of the insurers’ letters followed the typical approach of identifying various policy provisions and exclusions and outlining the general mechanics of those provisions, but they fell short of applying the provisions or exclusions to the facts in the case at hand. Further, the letters stated that the insurers would reevaluate how the provisions applied as the underlying case progressed. One of the insurer’s letters expressed doubt as to coverage but did not offer any analysis on the reasons for the prospective coverage denial.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice
December 29, 2020 —
Robert Dennison - Traub LiebermanIn American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage.
The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies.
The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Dennison, Traub LiebermanMr. Dennison may be contacted at
rdennison@tlsslaw.com
Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule
April 02, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to product liability law, one important doctrine that will always come up is the economic loss rule. The economic loss rule, oftentimes going by its acronym ELR, lives and breathes in the realm of product liability law.
Does the economic loss rule extend to a manufacturer’s distributor for a duty to warn when the product is NOT defective? A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, NBIS Construction & Transport Ins. Services v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 2024 WL 861257 (11th Cir. 2024), was confronted with this question, including whether the economic loss rule should even extend to a distributor of a product, and certified the following to Florida’s Supreme Court to answer: “Whether, under Florida law, the economic loss rule applies to negligence claims against a distributor of a product, stipulated to be non-defective, for the failureto alert a product owner of a known danger, when the only damages claimed are to the product itself?” NBIS, supra, at *8.
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
Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry
March 22, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton, Rose Quam-Wickham & William J. Walsh - Lewis BrisboisThe Biden Administration has left no doubt that it intends to prioritize environmental justice (EJ) in implementing energy and environmental policy. While EJ is not new – in fact, President Clinton signed the first EJ Executive Order (EO 12898) in 1994 – the new Administration’s plan to expand the concept to include “climate justice” and “health equity” is both novel and undefined. Similar to actions taken on climate change (see our previous alert from January 28), President Biden has announced plans for elevating EJ by designating new Cabinet level offices, intensifying enforcement, and advocating for Congressional action. Given the likelihood of serious impacts from these sweeping changes, industry will need to step up engagement as these concepts are integrated into regulatory decisions and U.S. positions globally.
Authority for addressing injustice caused by environmental pollution that disproportionately affects certain communities is found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act imposed a responsibility on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to ensure that its funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination, based on race, color, or national origin, making EPA’s Office of Civil Rights responsible for the investigation and enforcement of Title VI within the Agency. President Clinton relied on this authority in signing EO 12898, which directed federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and, going beyond the protections covered by Title VI, low-income populations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois,
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois,
Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois and
William J. Walsh, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Walsh may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit
September 17, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are cases where I honestly do no fully understand the insurer’s position because it cannot have its cake and eat it too. The recent opinion in Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Vaughn, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1828a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) is one of those cases because on one hand it tried hard to disclaim coverage and on the other hand tried to intervene in the underlying suit where it was not a named party.
This case dealt with a personal injury dispute where a laborer for a pressure washing company fell off of a roof and became a paraplegic. The injured person sued the pressure washing company and its representatives. The company and representatives tendered the case to its general liability insurer and the insurer–although it provided a defense under a reservation of rights—filed a separate action for declaratory relief based on an exclusion in the general liability policy that excluded coverage for the pressure washing company’s employees (because the general liability policy is not a workers compensation policy). This is known as the employer’s liability exclusion that excludes coverage for bodily injury to an employee. The insurer’s declaratory relief action sought a declaration that there was no coverage because the injured laborer was an employee of the pressure washing company. The pressure washing company claimed he was an independent contractor, in which the policy did provide limited coverage pursuant to an endorsement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
