It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA
March 08, 2021 —
Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionWe're all familiar with it at this point. A popup comes up on your device informing you of a change to terms and conditions, or otherwise asking for permission. For those operating websites, they know that this inconvenience is required to comply with various legal requirements. What they may not be aware of yet, is that these requirements, and popups, are about to become much, much, more prevalent. Recently, the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"), passed by the voters of the State of California, includes new language specifying how consent is supposed to be obtained for the collection of personal information, amending the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"). This new manner of consent rules out browsewrap agreements, and would require that popups increase as website operators shift focus to clickwrap agreements, if they have not already.
Browsewrap and Clickwrap
Typically, online agreements comprising Terms of Service or a Privacy Policy can be broken into either (a) browsewrap agreements - agreements that imply assent or agreement to online terms by the mere act of using a website or an online service after a clear and conspicuous notice that terms exist or (b) clickwrap agreements - agreements that show assent or agreement to online terms by having an individual click or otherwise agree to. While the best option to ensure enforceability is always the one that leaves the most documented signs of assenting to terms (i.e. a clickwrap agreement), both are typically recognized and enforced under California law. The practical effect of this is that to get consent, all that is technically needed is either to (a) show actual consent by having the person click on an "I agree" button, or (b) provide that the website visitor had ample notice that terms existed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing
April 01, 2015 —
Michelle Jamrisko and Nina Glinski – BloombergWhen a parking space in Manhattan costs $136,000 and only 15 percent of San Francisco's homes are affordable for the middle class, it's easy to worry that another housing bubble is around the corner.
The vast majority of American homeowners have little to fear: A new gauge from Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio, suggests the national market is in its best shape since 2001 and there's no reason to fear a national downturn, no less a bursting bubble.
In its first data release, the national Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets rose to 109.8 in the fourth quarter. Values greater than 100 indicate a robust industry. The index uses local data in 373 metropolitan statistical areas that are underlying drivers of the housing market, including measures on employment changes, demographics and the mortgage market.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg and
Nina Glinski, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hudson Tunnel Plan Shows Sign of Life as U.S. Speeds Review
April 19, 2021 —
Elise Young - BloombergThe U.S. Transportation Department has committed to finishing an environmental review for a new Hudson River rail tunnel, after a three-year delay helped prevent the groundbreaking of one of the nation’s most urgently needed infrastructure projects.
The evaluation of the new commuter link between New Jersey and New York City will be finished by May 28, according to an update to the federal government’s online permitting dashboard. If the study is cleared, the $11.6 billion Gateway project could potentially qualify for partial federal funding.
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg last month told lawmakers that the tunnel is among President Joe Biden’s priorities. Biden on Wednesday introduced a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, fed by a tax increase on the wealthy, that he called a “once-in-a-generation investment in America.” The proposal calls for rebuilt bridges and highways, a shift to cleaner energy and boosts for mass transit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Elise Young, Bloomberg
Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute
December 17, 2015 —
Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty.
The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Let’s Get Specific: Rhode Island Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Manufacturer
February 04, 2025 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Federal Ins. Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs., Inc. No. 1-22- CV-00123-MSM-LDA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218185, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island considered whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, third-party defendant. The court granted the third-party defendant’s first motion to dismiss for lack of general jurisdiction but permitted the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery. After the close of jurisdictional discovery, the third-party defendant renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This time, the court found that, based on the record, it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendant.
The plaintiff, Federal Insurance Company (Insurer), brought this subrogation action after its insured, the Town of Westerly, sustained a water loss at a public elementary school in 2020. The water loss occurred while the school was undergoing renovations. A defendant, Advanced Safety Systems (Advanced), was retained to replace the fire suppression system in the computer server room. Advanced subcontracted with defendant J. Gallant Electrical Services (Gallant) to replace the electrical service panel for the sprinkler system. Gallant was in process of deenergizing the fire suppression system when the system discharged, causing damage to the equipment in the server room. After paying its insured for the damage, Insurer sued Advanced and Gallant for negligence and breach of contract, alleging that Gallant was careless in causing the system to discharge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun
April 04, 2022 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion.
With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship
May 26, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.
The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”
October 24, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA contractor for a hotel in Seattle was tasked with constructing the hotel utilizing premanufactured modular hotel rooms. The modular unit portion of the project was the subject of a $15.8 million subcontract between the general contractor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also responsible to the GC for shipping and installing the modular units.
Shipping was to be “DDP,” or “Delivery Duty Paid” – which, according to a New York federal court, “is an international shipping term meaning that the seller assumes all responsibilities and costs for delivering property to the named place of destination, including export and import clearance, fees, duties, and taxes.” Additionally, per the subcontract, the manufacturer was responsible for “ensur[ing] all modular units [were] covered, secured[,] and protected from damage during the shipping process….” The modular units were shipped from Poland to Seattle. In the shipping process, the units spent some time in the Port of Everett in Washington state, where the units sustained water damage while sitting in port.
A related damage claim made by the subcontractor against the general contractor’s builder’s risk policy. On the face of the policy, the policy covered subcontractors as “additional insured” parties, covered all manner of materials and the like to be used on the project, and would provide that coverage in the process of transporting the materials insofar as “inland or coastal waters” were concerned. Yet, the builder’s risk insurer refused to cover the claim for the damages to the modular units which occurred while sitting in port in Everett.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
