Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied
June 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014).
During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components."
The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe former head of Orients Construction Company and of Melrose Construciton Company, Herlindo Garcia-Merlos, has entered a guilty plea to charges that the gave false informoation to his insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group, for more than three years in order to lower his workers compensation payments. Mr. Garcia-Merlos was able to underpay by more than $315,000 as a result of this deception.
Mr. Garcia-Merlos additionally failed to file tax returns for his companies and underreported his wages on his own tax returns. The State of New Jersey is seeking an eight-year prison term and restitution of more than $400,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?
September 19, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are times a contractor installs the wrong material or system contrary to the plans and specifications. A nonconformity. The owner wants the already-installed material or system to be replaced in conformity with the plans and specifications. However, what was installed is functionally equivalent to what the plans and specifications required and would be cost prohibitive, i.e., economically wasteful. If the contractor elects to remove and replace the nonconforming work, it may seek a change order because it is economically wasteful. Or, the contractor may refuse (typically, not the best approach) in furtherance of taking on the fight based on the economic wastefulness associated with the removal and replacement. A recent case, David Boland, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 3440349 (Fed.Cl. 2022), talks about this exaction situation and the economic waste doctrine. This is an important doctrine for contractors to understand when faced with a similar predicament.
Here, a contractor was hired by the government to construct a wastewater collection system that was to be owned and operated by a private company. The contractor’s work was going to be incorporated into a larger sewer system that the private company already operated. The contractor was required to install sewer manholes reinforced with steel in accordance with an ASTM standard. The manholes could be rejected if they did not conform to the ASTM standard. Compliance with this ASTM standard was also required by the private company’s construction protocol for the infrastructure, which was incorporated into the contractor’s contract with the government. The contractor was required to strictly comply with the contract.
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
New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
November 30, 2020 —
Paul A. Briganti - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020).
The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLPMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware
April 28, 2016 —
Randall MacTough, Timothy Martin & Christian Singewald – White & Williams LLPThe days of companies being sued in Delaware based solely upon their compliance with Delaware’s registration statutes appear over. Recently, the Delaware Supreme Court, in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec[1], held that Delaware Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation registered to do business in Delaware for claims unrelated to its conduct in Delaware.
In Delaware, foreign corporations must register to do business and designate a registered agent in Delaware to accept service of process to sell its products or services.[2] Since 1988, Delaware has construed these registration laws as foreign corporations’ express consent to general jurisdiction.[3]
Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP attorneys
Randall MacTough,
Timothy Martin and
Christian Singewald
Mr. MacTough may be contacted at mactoughr@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at martint@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach
November 21, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & J. Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion LLPCybersecurity is a growing concern for today's businesses. While it's always advisable to take whatever action possible to avoid a cybersecurity breach, no security measures can be one hundred percent perfect, and malicious actors are always innovating and trying to find new security flaws. The implementation of new technology brings with it new opportunities, but also potentially new vulnerabilities. And hackers have one major advantage – those working to defend against cyber-attacks have to try to find and fix every potential exploit, whereas those on the other side only need to find one. As demonstrated by recent high-profile breaches at Google and Facebook, even massive tech companies with access to vast financial resources and top engineering talent can still fall prey to cyber-attacks. Therefore, understanding how to respond to a breach is just as critical to a company's cybersecurity plan as attempting to prevent one. Below are a few solid tips on how to react when an organization's cybersecurity has been compromised.
Plan in Advance
The best response to a cybersecurity breach begins before the breach ever happens. A written incident response plan is of paramount importance. In the immediate aftermath of a cybersecurity breach, people will be scared and stressed. In those circumstances, they will be more likely to be able to respond effectively if there is a plan laid out for them and they have received training on how to follow that plan. Make sure that employees are trained on the parts of the plan that are relevant to them. Most may only need to know who to report to if they suspect a breach may have occurred, while those who will be involved in the breach response will need more in-depth training. The plan should also be updated regularly to account for staffing changes, new technology, and the evolving legal landscape. The law may also require a plan for responding to cybersecurity breaches, depending on the jurisdiction.
Call Your Lawyer- Early and Often
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, attorneys are critical in responding to a cybersecurity breach. The most obvious reason is to advise clients on their legal obligations and potential liability – and this is indeed an important function. The patchwork of federal and state regulations governing cybersecurity is something laypeople – and even non-specialized attorneys – should navigate with caution. Of equal importance is the preservation of confidential communication under the attorney-client privilege. The presence of an attorney helps to improve the security of information surrounding the response to the breach because correspondence with that attorney is privileged, allowing candid evaluation of the breach. The ability to assert attorney-client privilege regarding an internal investigation and response can be quite useful in the event of a later external investigation or litigation.
To Disclose or Not to Disclose?
An important question that needs to be asked in the wake of a cybersecurity breach is whether the incident must be disclosed, and if so, when, how, and to whom should such disclosures be made? While many understandably wish that their mistakes and failures will never see the light of day, there are also many people who will want to know when a company's cybersecurity has been breached. Shareholders want to know – and may have a right to know – if such a breach has harmed the business. Consumers want to know if their personal information has been compromised so that they can protect against identity theft. Furthermore, state breach notification laws may mandate certain disclosures to consumers depending on facts surrounding the breach. Legal requirements from states, the federal government, and even foreign entities may also require companies to provide notices to one or more regulatory agencies.
An attorney can advise on whether a company is legally required to provide any notice in the aftermath of a data breach, but even though notice may not be a legal requirement in a particular set of circumstances, it may still be prudent to give it anyway. Google decided not to disclose the recent breach of data from its Google+ service to avoid a PR and regulatory backlash, but the fact that it had happened eventually leaked out anyway. Even though legal experts have opined in the aftermath that Google likely was not obligated to disclose the breach, the fact that it did not caused exactly what Google attempted to avoid, but with magnified effect. "Google Experiences Consumer Data Breach" may not have been a good headline, but "Google Hides Consumer Data Breach" was a worse one.
Remember: Protection Is Key
No company wants a cybersecurity breach, but past experience has increasingly demonstrated that this is not a question of "if" but rather one of "when" and "how bad." Planning ahead and knowing what to do when a data breach does happen can ensure that an organization bounces back from a breach as smoothly and painlessly as possible.
Scott Satkin and Kyle Janecek are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Kyle at kyle.jancecek@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of cybersecurity, business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?
April 06, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMost property policies provide coverage for property damage only when there is "direct physical loss" to covered property. Early indications are that COVID-19 remains on surfaces. The duration can last from a few hours to three weeks, depending on the type of surface material. If an employee is infected and the store or restaurant must closed because the virus may rest on surfaces within the building, is there direct physical loss, even though the building structure itself is unharmed?
To answer this question, cases from jurisdictions outside Hawaii may provide guidance. In a case from Louisiana, the homeowner had to move out of her home when excessive levels of organic lead were discovered in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic. Widder v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 82 So. 3d 294 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The insurer denied coverage because there was no direct physical loss. The trial court agreed; since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred, so there was no coverage under the policy. The appellate court reversed. It compared the presence of inorganic lead in the home to cases that found a direct physical loss from the existence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, rendering the home unusable or uninhabitable. Physical damage was not necessary.
What if smoke from a nearby wildfire fills an outdoor theater, forcing cancellation of performances and loss of business income? This was the situation in Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Inc. Co., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 74450 (D. Ore. Jun 7, 2016). Wildfires in the area caused smoke, soot, and ash to accumulate on the surface of seats and concrete ground of the open-air theater. The air quality was poor, but no federal, state or local agency ordered cancellation of the performances. Further, the theater did not suffer any permanent or structural damage to its property. The insurer denied coverage, contending that the loss or damage must be structural to the building itself. After all, the smoke in the air at the theater did not require any repairs to the structure of the property. The court disagreed. The theater sustained "physical loss or damage to property" when the wildfire smoke infiltrated the theater and rendered it unusable for its intended purpose. The decision in Oregon Shakespeare Festival was eventually vacated by a joint stipulation of the parties. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins.Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33208 (D. Ore. March 6, 2017), but the reasoning is still sound.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far
May 25, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams.
The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC
The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic.
Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
