Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Being Chosen to Receive The 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award
May 28, 2024 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Founder/CEO Nicole Whyte has been chosen by the Orange County/Long Beach region of the Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”) to receive the 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award.
The ADL annual Jurisprudence Dinner, at which Nicole will be honored along with the Hon. Kirk Nakamura (retired) and Michael Ermer, will be held on Thursday, September 19, 2024, at the Turnip Rose Promenade in Costa Mesa.
Congratulations to Nicole for her lifetime of service not only to Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP but also to the larger community. Immediate past recipients include Brian Farrell, the Hon. Glenda Sanders (retired), and Eric Trout.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed
October 17, 2023 —
David Voreacos - BloombergA real estate developer was convicted for promoting $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions after a judge removed a deliberating juror who told the judge she was “standing up for White people.”
Jack Fisher was found guilty Friday in Atlanta federal court of selling tax deductions to wealthy individuals using so-called syndicated conservation easements, which offer tax breaks for the promise to avoid developing land. Prosecutors said Fisher relied on exaggerated appraisals and backdated documents in the scheme, which earned him tens of millions of dollars.
Jurors also convicted a lawyer who worked with Fisher, James Sinnott. Attorneys for Fisher and Sinnott didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The nine-week trial nearly came undone by conflicts over race and class within the jury, which began deliberating on Sept. 14. Last week, jurors told US District Judge Timothy Batten they were “hopelessly hung.” Jurors also complained that Juror 26, a White woman, refused to deliberate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Voreacos, Bloomberg
Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company
February 19, 2019 —
Patrick M. McDermott & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned.
EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFOSHA calculates that for each 33,000 active construction workers, one will die on the job each year, making their risk over the course of their careers at one out of every 200 workers. This puts it many times over OSHA’s definition of “significant risk” of 1 death per 1,000 workers over the course of their careers. According to an article in People’s World, “the main risk of death is from falls.”
At a talk at the American Public Health Association’s meeting, one expert noted that “construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thank You for 18 Straight Years in the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law
December 31, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 18th consecutive year. The 18 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my nearly 15 years as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 14 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 14 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers who were elected along with me, see the 2024 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation
November 12, 2019 —
Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction LitigationThe Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019).
In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Ingham may be contacted at
ingham@hhmrlaw.com
The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence
July 21, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAnswering a question posed by the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court found that a suit against a employer for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of a employee who intentionally injures a third party alleges an occurrence under a CGL policy. Liberty Surplus Co. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018)
Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company (L&M) contracted with the school district to manage a construction project at a middle school. L&M hired Darold Hecht as an assistant superintendent on the project. In 2010, Jane Doe, a 13-year-old student at the school, sued alleging that Hecht had sexually abused her. Doe’s claims included a cause of action against L&M for negligent hiring, retaining, and supervising Hecht.
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
