Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert
January 28, 2019 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test.
As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and WilliamsMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.
The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Crain’s Chicago Business, “as few as a fifth of elevators get the required annual checkup,” Chicago Inspector General Joe Ferguson claimed.
Ferguson audited the roughly 5,100 buildings that city inspectors were assigned to inspect elevators, and found that only 965 were actually inspected, reported Crain’s Chicago Business. Furthermore, “when problems were found in inspections conducted by city personnel, they often were not fixed in a timely manner, again according to city records.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors
March 23, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHow are delay damages treated when two subcontractors cause a mutual or concurrent delay to the project?
Assume multiple subcontractors concurrently contributed to an impact to the critical path resulting in a delay to the project. The delay caused the prime contractor to: (1) be assessed liquidated damages from the owner and (2) incur extended general conditions. The prime contractor will be looking to the subcontractors for reimbursement for any liquidated damages it is assessed along with its extended general conditions costs.
There is really no great case that addresses this point when two (or more) subcontractors mutually or concurrently delay the project. It is also not uncommon, and frankly expected, that a subcontractor will point the finger at another subcontractor for the cause of the delay or that another subcontractor was concurrently delaying the project.
The prime contractor should absolutely, without any exception, undertake efforts with a scheduling consultant to allocate the delay caused by subcontractors. Taking an approach that joint and several liability applies between multiple subcontractors and/or not trying to apportion delay because the subcontractors concurrently delayed the critical path at the same time is probably not the best approach. The prime contractor should have an expert render an opinion as to the allocation of the delay period amongst responsible subcontractors that delayed the critical path. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a mistake.
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
Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?
January 06, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek and Jeffrey Dennis - Newmeyer DillionTo anyone who does business online - beware. While the ADA has been in play for years, it did not necessarily account for all the technological advances that have been made over time. Specifically, when it comes to accommodations - what accommodations can and should be made within a website, and whether accommodations should be made on all websites or just some. However, because of this, a new type of lawsuit has emerged, and is slowly becoming more prominent. Since the Supreme Court refused to clarify this particular area of law, we must turn to the recent Ninth Circuit Ruling in Robles v. Domino's for guidance.
What Happened in Robles v. Domino's?
As part of a spree of litigation, Guillermo Robles had sued Domino's Pizza due to the lack of accessibility for the Domino's smartphone application and website. Mr. Robles is blind, and neither the website nor application, which allowed users to order Domino's food for pickup or delivery, and offer exclusive discounts, were accessible to him. The Domino's website and application were both incompatible with his chosen software, prompting a lawsuit in 2016. After a short success in the trial court due to the lack of guidance given to websites and applications in how to accommodate for the ADA, the Ninth Circuit overruled the trial court, finding that: (1) the ADA applied to Domino's as there was a nexus between the Domino's website and app, and physical restaurants; and (2) the lack of guidance to Domino's did not violate its right to due process.
The ultimate effect of Robles v. Domino's found that businesses cannot necessarily avoid ADA litigation, even though the federal government hasn't given guidelines on how to make a website or mobile application accessible.
What Happened at the Supreme Court?
Back in June, Domino's appealed the Ninth Circuit decision, prompting a flurry of amicus briefs. This was done, in part, because there is a circuit split between the Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits requiring that a website has a physical nexus to a place of public accommodation (i.e. a "brick-and-mortar" location), and the First, Second, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, which will rule that a website is a place of public accommodation if it does something a place of public accommodation would do (i.e. Netflix showing films). In addition, parties aside from Domino's have been looking for further guidance given the lack of comments from the Department of Justice and Congress. This is especially relevant because the Department of Justice has been considering the application of the ADA to the internet from 1996 to 2018, resulting in some inconsistent comments regarding the need for rule making.
This had pushed Domino's and others to attempt to end the ongoing regulation through litigation and furthermore, due to the decision in the Ninth Circuit, to avoid the Domino's holding from creating a "defacto" requirement.
How Do You Prepare?
While there is an off-chance that this kind of civil ADA litigation will resurface to the Supreme Court, these claims tend to settle relatively quickly, and ultimately may prevent courts from providing any solid or concrete guidance on accessibility until either the Department of Justice provides guidelines or Congress amends the ADA to specifically address website accessibility.
However, a determination of what is "accessible" may be put forward due to the new proposed regulations for the CCPA set forth by California's Attorney General. The proposed regulations specifically state that a privacy policy should be accessible to consumers with disabilities, and at a minimum, should provide information on how a consumer with a disability can access the notice in an alternative format. Importantly, this removes the arguments on whether or not the website would have to be a place of public accommodation. It is now widely applicable to every website. Given the CCPA is to be enforced by the Attorney General, this presents a possible situation where the state of California will determine what is accessible through enforcement actions.
In the absence of guidelines however, you have four actions you can take to protect your business.
- Learn the standards. There are unofficial accessibility guidelines such as WCAG 2.0AA that are treated as an industry standard. While this may not completely protect you from claims made by litigants, this will help your business move towards compliance.
- Know and negotiate. When dealing with third party service providers or developers, make sure that accessibility is brought up, discussed, and addressed before moving forward with using that service provider or developer. If the developer or service provider cannot assure that their product is accessible, be prepared to walk away. A business may be found liable for the inaccessibility of an online service provider used by the business to provide the business's services.
- Beta test often. As technology changes or websites are updated to be more device-friendly, new code or functions may make a website less accessible for accessibility devices and software. In addition, just because a website meets the WCAG 2.0AA, this may not account for all accessibility issues, so it would be prudent and beneficial to be thorough.
- Get help. Consider hiring third parties to help you evaluate a plan for accessibility and keep you up-to date for online accessibility issues.
Nonetheless, there is still a significant risk and uncertainty for anyone who does business online, as any business has to be aware of the current general framework of laws and industry accessibility guidelines to hope they meet the murky definition of "accessible."
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firms Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings
March 06, 2022 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogThe Texas “eight corners” rule precludes insurers from disclaiming a defense obligation based on facts not alleged in the underlying pleadings. Texas federal and appellate courts have been issuing rulings addressing exceptions to the eight corners rule and recently sought guidance from the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas law recognizes such exceptions to the “eight corners” rule. The Texas Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue.
Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., 65 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 440 (2022).
In Monroe, David Jones contracted with 5D Drilling & Pump Services in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3,600-foot commercial irrigation well on his farmland. In 2016, Jones sued 5D for breach of contract and negligence relating to 5D’s drilling operations on Jones’s property. Jones’s pleading was silent as to when the damage flowing from 5D’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred. BITCO and Monroe stipulated that 5D’s drill struck a bore hole during 5D’s drilling operations in or around November 2014.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132
May 08, 2023 —
Drew M. Jorgenson & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer DillionThe Elimination of Judgment by Confession
Following in the footsteps of Massachusetts and Florida, California recently updated California Code of Civil Procedure section 1132 which renders judgments by confession unenforceable and inadmissible in any superior court, effective January 1, 2023. The bar is not retroactive, so judgments by confession obtained or entered before January 1, 2023 are still valid. Moving forward, consider the following.
What is a Judgment By Confession?
A judgment by confession, also known as a confession of judgment or "cognovit" clause, is a mechanism by which a debtor agrees that a creditor may summarily obtain a legal judgment against that debtor and enforce it in the event of the debtor's breach of contract or default. In other words, it is a private admission by a debtor that they are liable for a debt without the need for a trial, and consequently, agree to forfeit very important rights. Most importantly, parties agreeing to such clauses are waiving rights such as the right to notice of the judgment and the right to assert defenses against the creditor or third party's claims. Historically, without any judicial involvement, these types of out-of-court judgments would be enforceable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Drew M. Jorgenson, Newmeyer Dillion and
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Jorgenson may be contacted at drew.jorgenson@ndlf.com
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims
June 09, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016).
Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
