Environmental Justice Legislation Update
May 17, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelEnvironmental Justice, as an urgent priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations. The primary legal basis for this order was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. In Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, as written, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination. Noting that disproportionate impact is not the sole touchstone of invidious racial discrimination. Moreover, the Court also ruled in Sandoval that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints at 40 CFR Part 7. Without strengthening the statutory base of environmental justice, the program may continue to be the subject of countless symposiums and seminars. However, this may change soon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement
January 13, 2020 —
Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesIn July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract.
The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret.
The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.”
Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech.
The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding.
In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement.
Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit.
The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms.
Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits
February 21, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's granting summary judgment to the insurer after failing to abide by an assignment to which it was not a party. Expert Inspections, LLC v. United Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 88 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2022).
The insured's property sustained damage from Hurricane Irma resulting in a covered loss. The insured retained Expert Inspections to perform mold-related services. As payment, the insured assigned her policy benefits pursuant to an assignment of benefits agreement. Under the agreement, the insured agreed to cooperate with the assignee to ensure that payments were made by the insurer upon completion of work. The insured gave authority to the assignee to endorse any checks with her name listed on the check.
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
Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain
August 26, 2019 —
Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub LiebermanOn June 26, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain in a slip and fall accident filed in Osceola County Circuit Court in Kissimmee, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water allegedly existing in the hotel’s laundry room and suffered a partial thickness rotator cuff tear involving the distal infraspinatus tendon for which he underwent surgery and incurred over $70,000 in medical bills. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the hotel claiming the hotel had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition proximately causing the Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries.
After discovery closed, Mr. Guldalian filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the hotel arguing that to prevail in a negligence claim involving a “transitory foreign substance”, such as water on a floor, an injured party must plead and prove pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755 that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it prior to the time of the alleged fall. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that (1) the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition or (2) that the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable that the condition would be present on the day the injury occurred.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub LiebermanMr. Guldalian may be contacted at
bguldalian@tlsslaw.com
Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West
August 12, 2024 —
Mark Chediak - BloombergTrinity Public Utilities District’s power lines snake through the lower reaches of the Cascade Range, a rugged, remote and densely forested terrain in Northern California that has some of the highest wildfire risk in the country. But for several years, the company has been without insurance to protect it from such a threat.
Trinity’s equipment was blamed for causing a 2017 wildfire that destroyed 72 homes and three years later its insurer, a California public agency called the Special District Risk Management Authority, told the utility that it would no longer cover it for fires started by its electrical lines. Trinity could find no other takers.
The utility’s exposure comes as wildfires are already flaring up across the US West in what could be a dangerous and prolonged fire season.
“If a fire were to start now that involved one of our power lines, it would likely bankrupt the utility,” said Paul Hauser, general manager of the local government-owned utility that serves about 13,000 rural customers in Trinity County, 200 miles (322 kilometers) north of Sacramento. That’s because without insurance, a lawsuit could put the utility on the hook to pay for damages to private homes and businesses, which could easily top the utility’s annual revenue of about $16 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved
April 17, 2019 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location.
Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is:
500 Capitol Mall
Suite 2150
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution
February 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelA Resolution has been proposed to the House for consideration that would recognize the Federal Government’s duty “to create a Green New Deal.” It sets forth a very ambitious 10-year program to mobilize and transform every aspect of American life to combat the threats of climate change by transitioning to an economy based upon 100% clean and renewable energy.
In doing so, millions of new jobs would be created, and everyone who wants a job would be guaranteed a job. The sponsors’ talking points declare that there is no time to lose, that Americans love a challenge, and “this is our moonshot.” The obvious goal is to eliminate the generation and use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy—they are simply not part of the solution.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely
May 04, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationOn Tuesday, February 18th, the Colorado House Business Affairs & Labor Committee voted 10-0 to postpone indefinitely House Bill 1046. If it had been enacted, HB 1046 would have required, for all for all construction contracts of at least $150,000:
- A property owner to make partial payments to the contractor of any amount due under the contract at the end of each calendar month or as soon as practicable after the end of the month;
- A property owner to pay the contractor at least 95% of the value of satisfactorily completed work;
- A property owner to pay the withheld percentage within 60 days after the contract is completed satisfactorily;
- A contractor to pay a subcontractor for work performed under a subcontract within 30 calendar days after receiving payment for the work, not including a withheld percentage not to exceed 5%;
- A subcontractor to pay any supplier, subcontractor, or laborer who provided goods, materials, labor, or equipment to the subcontractor within 30 calendar days after receiving payment under the subcontract; and
- A subcontractor to submit to the contractor a list of the suppliers, sub-subcontractors, and laborers who provided goods, materials, labor, or equipment to the subcontractor for the work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
