New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion
October 07, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage.
In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts
July 30, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGiven the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong.
That is, with one exception.
And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts.
It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement
June 22, 2016 —
John K. Baker & Kevin Conrad – White and Williams LLPThe United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a
Final Rule revising portions of its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses regulations (Recording and Reporting Regulations). The revisions take effect August 10, 2016.
Employers subject to the new requirements have until July 1, 2017 to submit electronically the required information for calendar year 2016. OSHA will make electronically-submitted workplace-safety data for each reporting employer available publicly in an online database.
Reprinted courtesy of
John K. Baker, White and Williams LLP and
Kevin Conrad, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Conrad may be contacted at conradk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction
May 20, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOn May 1, OSHA announced its final rules for construction workers in confined spaces. The Final Rules, which will take effect August 3, 2015, will require more comprehensive training , with the goal of providing construction workers the same or similar protections as employees in manufacturing and general industry.
The final rule will cover confined spaces such as:
- Crawl spaces
- Manholes
- Tanks
- Sewers
The final rule will require the following:
- Confined spaces must be large enough for an employee to enter and have a means of exiting.
- The air in confined spaces must be tested before workers enter them to ensure that the air is safe.
- Construction workers must share safety information with others when they are going to work in enclosed/confined spaces.
- Hazards associated with confined spaces must be continuously monitored and abated to the extent possible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiWhile some of their claims were dismissed, plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Senft v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61870 (D. N.J. May 12, 2015).
Plaintiffs' waterfront home was insured by Fireman's Fund. Plaintiffs alleged that the broker represented that the policy would provide (1) coverage in the event of a hurricane,(2) the "highest level of protection" offered by Fireman's Fund, and (3) "exceptional" services in the event of a catastrophe. The policy included a 2% hurricane deductible because of the home's proximity to the ocean.
Hurricane Sandy badly damaged plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs alleged that the winds from Sandy battered their home long before the storm surge reached the structure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards
April 05, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPJD Supra named Partner Steven Cvitanovic among the Top 10 Authors in the construction industry in its 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards, which recognizes the excellence and achievement of firms and authors who published their substantive work on JD Supra in 2016.
JD Supra editors chose the 25 industries and topics covered in these awards for their timeliness as well as their proven, ongoing importance. In each category, one firm and ten authors were recognized for consistently achieving the highest readership and engagement for all of 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at
scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony
March 15, 2021 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation SpecialistMany subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLPMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill
May 11, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer Dillion"Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation?
WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT?
The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements.
First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
- Track the spread of COVID-19,
- Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
- Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected.
Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
- Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
- Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
- Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
- Describe its data retention policy, and
- Generally describe its data security measures.
Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information.
In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation.
Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis.
WHAT DATA IS COVERED?
Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information."
HOW IS IT ENFORCED?
Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state.
WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO?
If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others.
While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's 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.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
