140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?
September 09, 2019 —
Kyle Janecek and Jeff Dennis – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia, for better or for worse, has a reputation as being a trendsetter, and has taken the lead in the United States by passing the "California Consumer Privacy Act," or "CCPA." This massive law has been on the books since 2018, but hasn't taken effect yet. However, the timeframe for businesses to be in compliance is rapidly diminishing. Currently, there are less than five months for businesses to (a) familiarize themselves with what the law requires; (b) determine how and if they are affected by the law; and (c) determine how to be in compliance with the law's demands. Right now, companies aren't making a rush to become CCPA compliant, but this is a mistake. Below are a few of the misconceptions that businesses have, as well as the realities.
MISCONCEPTION 1: It doesn't apply to my company.
For many businesses, it will apply. The baseline of the CCPA is: (1) does the business do anything with California residents (including employees); (2) is it for-profit; and (3) it either has $25 million annual revenue, "sells" 50,000 pieces of personal information or receives 50% or more of its revenue from personal information.
It does not matter if the business is in Nevada, Arizona, Texas or Delaware. So long as there is some connection to Californian residents, exists to make a profit, and otherwise satisfies either the profit, volume, or revenue percentage requirements, it applies. On that note, even if a business does not sell personal information, it does not mean it does not "sell" personal information under the law, as it includes any exchange of personal information for valuable consideration, such as the exchange of consumer data between companies, or the sale of information to a University for study.
MISCONCEPTION 2: The Federal Government will stop it.
One of the main reasons we have the CCPA is because the Federal Government has not acted on this issue. Furthermore, there is a high likelihood that any Federal law will not be substantially different from the CCPA, keeping the core principles in place. It's also unlikely that such a law will take effect and be passed in the remaining five months before the CCPA begins enforcement. Companies must accept that ideals of transparency, choice, consent and reasonable security as they relate to consumers' personal information are here to stay.
MISCONCEPTION 3: California is still changing the law, so I should wait.
California is still in the process of fine-tuning the CCPA, but this is no reason to wait. Fixes to questions arising regarding the CCPA have come out piecemeal, and continued changes, including expansions are likely. For example, employees were previously not addressed specifically within the CCPA, but are being addressed in the planned AB 25, excluding employees from some of the CCPA's protections. Conversely, there have also been planned provisions to expand on the protections and enforcement mechanisms of the CCPA, including a broad and expansive private right of action to permit individuals to sue for technical violations of the statute, like having to wait too long for a response to the demand, even if no actual damage is suffered. Again, the foundational requirements of the CCPA will not change via amendment – so companies should act now.
MISCONCEPTION 4: It's too expensive.
Actually no. Many of the basic actions are not cost-prohibitive, and are actions a business would want to do anyways: (a) Employee training to avoid data breaches and how to respond to user requests; (b) data mapping to quickly find, access, and arrange protections for consumer data; and (c) ensuring you have reasonable cyber security. This can even be turned into a competitive advantage, as consumers increasingly value companies that share their interests, including their privacy.
A compliance mistake could be extraordinarily costly. Currently, a violation for statutory violations of the CCPA can carry a penalty between $2,500 to $7,500 per individual violation. Furthermore, there is a private right of action with statutory damages of $100 to $750 per individual violation that could quickly balloon to exceed $5 million at a minimum, and invites class action/lawsuits for a data breach.
While this is true of almost every legal risk, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The penalties on the higher end of the spectrum are for willful violations, and attempts to comply with the law can act to curb potential risks.
What Should I Do?
If you feel CCPA compliance is important to your business, and decide to prepare for the CCPA with us, our firm has created a 90-day CCPA compliance program where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, without breaking the bank. Let us provide you a free initial consultation to see if our CCPA compliance program works for you.
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 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
Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes
August 07, 2023 —
Stuart Eisler - Construction ExecutiveStakeholders engage in design-build projects believing the collaborative nature better aligns parties' interests and reduces overall risk exposure. Each of the lead parties bases this belief on different factors—the owner sees an opportunity to reduce change-order exposure and improve delivery times, the design-builder (or contractor) aims to control design volatility by ensuring project components match budgeted projections, and the designer intends to benefit by greater constructability review from the design-builder team and often additional time to detail designs. Rarely do design-build parties contemplate claims arising while initiating a project.
This being said, design-build projects carry unique, inherent risks due to the award of often fixed-price contracts utilizing incomplete, preliminary designs. As scopes creep and costs balloon, previously harmonious parties experience discord and lurking claims. While the majority of design-build projects are completed without major dispute, there are strategies available to further avoid disputes and prevail in those that are unavoidable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stuart Eisler, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements
April 13, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years.
On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations.
What Does This Mean for California Employers?
California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months.
Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements
Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection.
Looking to the Future
Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission.
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 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
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at
dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate
March 20, 2023 —
Associated Press - Engineering News-RecordWATSONVILLE, Calif. (AP) — A Northern California agricultural community famous for its strawberry crop was forced to evacuate early Saturday after the Pajaro River’s levee was breached by flooding from a new atmospheric river that pummeled the state.
Across the Central Coast's Monterey County , more than 8,500 people were under evacuation orders and warnings Saturday, including roughly 1,700 residents — many of them Latino farmworkers — from the unincorporated community of Pajaro.
Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL
August 03, 2020 —
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn - Newmeyer DillionOn June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020).
In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5.
In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id.
The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10.
Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id.
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Construction Bill Dies in Committee
July 21, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFAB 20, which its sponsor, Linda Halderman (R-Fresno), stated would discourage class action lawsuits against builders and protect jobs in the construction industry, has died in committee. Although the Business Journal reported in June that Haldeman was promoting the bill during a talk in her district and the bill is still on her web site, the California Assembly reports that the bill failed in committee on March 15, 2011. It is possible that the bill could be reconsidered, but the Assembly Committee on Judiciary sees the bill as responding to issues quieted by SB 800 which gives builders the right to repair alleged defects before any suit can be filed.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Killer Subcontract Provisions
January 20, 2020 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupWe are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:
- PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
- CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
- CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Third Circuit affirmed the granting summary judgment to the insurer over a dispute as to debris removal under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). Torre v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4902 (3rd Cir. March 26, 2015).
The Torres' property sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. Claims for flood damage were submitted to Liberty. Liberty paid a total of $235,751.68, which included the cost of removing debris from the house. An additional $15,520 for the cost of removing sand and other debris deposited on their land in front of and behind the Torres' home was denied on the grounds that the SFIP did not cover such removal.
The Torres filed suit and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court denied the Torres' motion and granted Liberty's motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
