Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant
April 19, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset.
A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:
Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”
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
Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims
April 18, 2023 —
Walter J. Andrews, Andrea DeField & Jae Lynn Huckaba - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAs discussed in a recent
client alert, on March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 837 into law, making it more difficult and costly for insurance policyholders of all sizes to sue insurers for bad faith by eliminating fee-shifting for most policyholders and requiring something “more than” negligence for bad faith claims.
HB 837’s Impact on Insurance Coverage Claims:
HB 837 is another in a series of reform legislation recently passed in Florida that significantly impacts policyholders’ ability to hold their insurers accountable for the wrongful failure to pay benefits due under the insurance contract. Recent efforts include last year’s repeal of the one-way fee-shifting statute for claims brought under residential and commercial property insurance policies. Previously, the fee-shifting statute allowed policyholders to recover attorneys’ fees from their insurers when the policyholder prevailed in a coverage action. HB 837 repeals
Section 627.428 of the Florida Statutes entirely, extending the repeal of the one-way fee-shifting statute to all types of insurance coverage disputes—not just those under residential and commercial property insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Jae Lynn Huckaba, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Huckaba may be contacted at jhuckaba@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia
October 07, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision.
In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment.
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
OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records
October 02, 2023 —
Ashley Meredith Strittmatter & Chelsea N. Hayes - Construction ExecutiveIn a revival of an OSHA recordkeeping rule originally implemented under the Obama administration in 2016 and "rolled back" by the Trump administration in 2019, OSHA issued a final rule on July 21, 2023, requiring certain establishments in high-hazard industries to submit additional injury and illness data electronically to OSHA. The
Final Rule is found at 29 CFR 1904 and goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
What does this mean? On and after Jan. 1, 2024, OSHA will require employers with 100 or more workers in certain high-hazard industries to provide annual information from their
Forms 300 and 301, in addition to the already-required electronic submission of Form 300A. Form 300 is the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, including the specific injuries or illnesses and the employee names, while Form 301 is the corresponding Injury and Illness Incident Report, which includes additional details on each item listed on the 300 Log. Form300A is the corresponding Annual Summary showing the injury and illness totals for the year, including the number of cases, number of lost workdays, the injury and illness types, the average number of employees and the total hours employees worked. This Form 300A Annual Summary must be routinely submitted by employers with more than 250 employees on or before March 2 of each year for the prior year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Meredith Strittmatter and Chelsea N. Hayes, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Strittmatter may be contacted at astrittmatter@bakerdonelson.com
Ms. Hayes may be contacted at cnhayes@bakerdonelson.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision
October 21, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittA new
blog post from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton discusses two recent decisions limiting the holding of Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979), a New Jersey case that has generated decades of commentary and debate, in
my own writing as well as that of many others (at least 1880 citations, according to the blog).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic WittMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net
No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society
August 24, 2020 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Konrad R. Krebs - White and WilliamsIn a widely anticipated ruling, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied two motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in hundreds of federal cases seeking coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Panel has ordered expedited briefing on whether four separate consolidated proceedings should be set up for four insurers – Cincinnati, Society, Hartford, and Lloyds – who appear to be named in the largest number of claims.
In seeking a single, industry-wide MDL proceeding, some plaintiffs had argued that common questions predominated across the hundreds of pending federal suits: namely, [1] the question of what constituted ‘physical loss or damage’ to property, under the allegedly standardized terms of various insurers’ policies; [2] the question whether various government closure orders should trigger coverage under those policies, and [3] the question whether any exclusions, particularly virus exclusions, applied.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Konrad R. Krebs, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification
July 13, 2020 —
Joseph N. Frost - Peckar & AbramsonContractors doing business with the Federal Government, particularly with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), commonly handle sensitive information that is not intended to be disseminated. Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) is one such type and is more specifically defined as “information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with laws, regulations and government-wide policies.”1 Because some DoD contracts require contractors to handle CUI, certain safeguards have been put in place to ensure its security. This article briefly touches on the current cybersecurity protocols, followed by a discussion of the new system being developed by the DoD, and what contractors most need to know about the new system.
The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) has long required contractors to comply with certain cybersecurity standards, as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). Specifically, DFARS sought to implement the cybersecurity framework found in NIST Special Publication (“SP”) 800-171, entitled “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations.” NIST SP 800-171 sets forth fourteen (14) families of recommended security requirements for protecting the confidentiality of CUI in nonfederal systems and organizations, including, among others, access control, audit and accountability, incident response, personnel security, and system and information integrity. However, after a series of data breaches, the DoD reassessed the efficacy of the continued use of NIST SP 800-171 and ultimately decided to institute a new methodology to ensure the security of CUI.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph N. Frost, Peckar & AbramsonMr. Frost may be contacted at
jfrost@pecklaw.com
Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas
February 05, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, Filed 1/27/2015) (“Greenwell”), the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held a California resident could not establish specific personal jurisdiction over an insurance company, located in Michigan, which issued a policy of insurance to the California resident where the claimed loss occurred in Arkansas.
Plaintiff purchased a policy of insurance from defendant, Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (“Auto”), a Michigan corporation. The policy provided commercial property coverage for an apartment building owned by Plaintiff, located in Arkansas. The policy also provided commercial general liability coverage for plaintiff’s property ownership business, which plaintiff operated from California.
Both coverage provisions insured certain risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California. The dispute which arose between Plaintiff and Defendant, however, involved two fires that damaged the apartment building in Arkansas. As a result of coverage decisions that Auto made in the handling of the claim, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Lawrence S. Zucker II and
Kristian B. Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com;
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com;
and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
