Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says
October 22, 2014 —
Patrick G. Lee – BloombergSecret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product.
The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office.
The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick G. Lee, BloombergMr. Lee may be contacted at
plee315@bloomberg.net
Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFLast December, Norman and Valerie Adkins, a couple in Edwardsville, Illinois, filed suit against their home builder, Customary Construction, and contractor Kevin M. Kahrig, alleging that the defendants did not build their deck according to code, Kelly Holleran of the Madison Record reported.
According to the complaint as stated by the Madison Record, the Adkins purchased the home from the defendants in October of 2010. The couple notified Kahrig (the Customary Construction owner) regarding cracks along the perimeter of their deck that had not been caulked. Kahrig sent a crew to fix the cracks, but the Adkins were unhappy with the work, the complaint states. The Adkins hired a masonry contractor to fix the deck, and the contractor found “structural issues with the arches and brick columns supporting the deck at the back of their home,” reported the Madison Record.
The Adkins then hired an engineer who “inspected the deck and reported that it had been improperly constructed and needed to be removed and replaced,” according to the complaint. The engineer continued, “The current condition of the deck is a safety hazard, as there is a risk of collapse and loose bricks or other masonry materials falling and striking a person within the proximity of the deck.” The Adkins are seeking “a judgment of more than $150,000, plus costs and attorney’s fees,” the Madison Record claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogGreat news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation.
New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence
Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes
June 26, 2023 —
Todd Woody - BloombergOne sunny morning last month, an earthquake jolted northeast San Diego. Minutes later, another temblor hit, causing a 10-story wood building to sway.
The quakes, though, were triggered by a computer and the shaking was confined to a 1,000-square-foot platform on which the building — a full-size test model — stood.
The structure is the tallest ever subjected to simulated earthquakes on the world’s largest high-performance “shake table,” which uses hydraulic actuators to thrust the steel platform through six degrees of motion to replicate seismic force. The shake-table trials at a University of California at San Diego facility are part of the TallWood Project, an initiative to test the seismic resiliency of high-rise buildings made of mass timber. An engineered wood building material, mass timber is increasingly popular as a more sustainable alternative to carbon-intensive concrete and steel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Woody, Bloomberg
Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)
October 02, 2023 —
Steve Swart - The Dispute Resolver"The most complex analyses grow beautifully simple as they become public objects.” Philip Rieff, Fellow Teachers (1973), quoted in JOHN BARTLETT, BARTLETT’S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS 800 (Geoffrey O’Brien gen. ed., 18th ed. 2012)
In a recent ABA Forum on Construction Law Webinar, a panelist with substantial experience as an arbitrator explained that documents are the most important evidence in a construction dispute. Fact-finders, she said, focus on contemporaneous project records more than witness testimony to vet what happened.
But, even a small to mid-sized construction project can generate millions of pages of documents. That is particularly true when disputes involve loss of productivity, delay, acceleration, and disruption. The volume of records related to entitlement and damages (e.g., timesheets, accounting, equipment logs, schedule files, meeting minutes, etc.) can overwhelm and confuse — not to mention bore — the fact finder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steve Swart, Williams MullenMr. Swart may be contacted at
sswart@williamsmullen.com
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
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
Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable
February 15, 2021 —
Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Cabatit v Sunnova Energy Corporation, the Third Appellate District held that an arbitration clause in a solar power lease agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
In Cabatit, Mr. and Ms. Cabitat entered into a solar power lease agreement (the “Agreement”) with Sunnova Energy Corporation (“Sunnova”). Ms. Cabitat, who signed the agreement, speaks English but does not understand complicated or technical terms. The salesperson scrolled through the agreement language and Ms. Cabatit initialed where the salesperson indicated, even though she did not understand most of what he was saying. The salesperson did not explain anything about the arbitration clause nor did he provide Ms. Cabatit with a copy of the Agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
