Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder
May 29, 2023 —
Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.In a new opinion
Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd., et al. v. Kara Whiteley, Cause No. 21-0783, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 8740, issued May 12, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court partially reversed two lower court decisions and held that an arbitration provision contained in the original homeowner’s contract with the builder was binding on a subsequent homeowner. In the decision, the court found that Kara Whiteley—the second owner of the home in Galveston, Texas—was bound to arbitrate her construction defect claims with Lennar by virtue of the doctrine of “direct-benefits estoppel.” The rationale was based on the fact that Whitely was seeking benefits emanating from Lennar’s contract with the original homeowner.
The residence in question was first purchased from Lennar in May 2014. Whiteley purchased the home in July 2015. The original contract documents included several arbitration provisions—one in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, one in the Limited Warranty issued by Lennar, and one in the general warranty deed. Whiteley sued Lennar in Galveston County District Court alleging mold growth and other defects at the property. Lennar moved for arbitration and its motion was granted. The parties arbitrated the case and Lennar received an award in its favor. Lennar then moved the District Court to confirm the arbitration award, and Whiteley filed a cross-motion to vacate the award, arguing that Lennar’s original motion to compel arbitration should not have been granted. The District Court agreed with Whiteley, vacating the arbitration award. Lennar appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s vacatur, and Lennar appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at
kaltsuler@pecklaw.com
Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?
February 05, 2015 —
Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLPPennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history.
In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8]
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution
October 28, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Underwriters of Interest v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co. (No. D066615; filed 10/23/15), a California appeals court refused to enforce an “escape” other insurance clause in an insurer versus insurer contribution action, refused to enforce a Contractors Special Conditions endorsement and found that equitable tolling applied to rule that a nondefending insurer was obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred defending the two insurers’ common insured.
Certain Underwriters provided CGL insurance to Pacific Trades Construction & Development in effect between October 23, 2001 and October 23, 2003. ProBuilders Specialty insured Pacific Trades from December 9, 2002 to December 9, 2004. When Pacific Trades was sued in construction defect actions arising out of the development and construction of single family homes, Underwriters provided a defense, while ProBuilders declined to participate. The case was ultimately settled and when Underwriters sued ProBuilders for contribution to the defense costs, the trial court granted summary judgment for ProBuilders, finding its other insurance clause precluded any obligation to contribute or reimburse Underwriters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
November 15, 2017 —
Jeff Dennis & Ivo Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPThe European Union (“EU”) has enacted a strict, comprehensive framework of security regulations aimed to protect its citizens. These regulations, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), provide a blueprint for a combination of required legal, technological and work habits within an organization. Although this is an EU regulation, the new laws will apply to any organization within or outside the EU that collects or processes data of EU citizens. Therefore, U.S. companies must analyze their data and processes to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary. A quickly-approaching deadline of May 25, 2018 must be met to avoid massive fines.
What is the GDPR?
In order to address the creation of social networking sites, cloud computing, and location-based services, the EU set in motion a process to implement a vigorous set of rules to ensure the right to personal data protection for all European citizens. In April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission adopted a new GDPR, which will take affect on May 25, 2018.
This GDPR will streamline cooperation between the data protection authorities on personal data issues allowing companies to deal with one authority - not each of the 28 EU member states. This will allow for quicker decisions by the data protection authorities and greatly reduce the red tape in both compliance and enforcement under the GDPR. This will also create a level playing field by forcing non-EU companies to comply with the same strict regulations - regardless of whether or not the company is established in the EU.
Territorial scope of the GDPR
The GDPR applies directly to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU - regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU. Additionally, there are specific provisions under the GDPR that apply to non-EU companies if their processing activities relate to (a) the offering of goods or services (irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required) or (b) monitoring the behavior of individuals within the EU. Therefore, all companies must determine whether they process or monitor information of EU citizens. If a company falls within one of these categories, compliance with the GDPR is mandatory.
What happens if a company fails to comply with the GDPR?
Failure to comply with the GDPR could subject a company to crushing administrative fines.
The supervisory authority has the power to impose administrative fines under the GDPR. The following violations and breaches would subject a company to administrative fines:
- Not adhering to the core principles of processing personal data,
- Breach of notification to EU citizens by controllers and processors,
- Wrongful transfer of personal data to non-EU countries,
- Breach of obligations regarding certification,
- Ignoring the mandates asserted by the supervisory authority,
- Breach by those responsible for impact assessment, and
- Wrongful processing of employee data.
The extent of the violation and type of personal data involved will dictate the severity of the administrative fines imposed on a company. For example, under the GDPR, a company could be subject to administrative fines up to 20,000,000 EUR, or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual revenue of the preceding financial year. Obviously, these fines would be financially crippling to any company.
Preparing for May 25, 2018
The May 25, 2018 deadline is fast approaching and preparing for full compliance with the GDPR is paramount. Simple steps should be taken to ensure compliance including to:
(1) Review and analyze data repositories for sensitive data,
(2) Perform an analysis/accounting of procedure for data collection, and
(3) Create an oversite committee dedicated to data activities and compliance.
Most importantly, however, is to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary, and strictly follow the requirements of the GDPR to protect from potentially massive fines.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner and as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
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
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise
June 05, 2023 —
The American Council of Engineering CompaniesWashington, D.C. – The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) released the following statement applauding the negotiated bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit ahead of the scheduled House vote tonight:
"The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) applauds President Biden and Speaker McCarthy for negotiating a bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit and avoid a catastrophic default. We are particularly pleased that the bipartisan deal protects the critical funds provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and does not include any changes to the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) climate and clean energy provisions, which the engineering industry is working hard to deliver successfully. ACEC also strongly supports the provisions in the deal to reform the federal permitting process. These commonsense measures to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), particularly through the use of digital technologies, will improve interagency collaboration and allow engineering firms to help their clients deliver project benefits more efficiently while ensuring strong environmental protections and opportunities for community and stakeholder engagement."
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of the nation's engineering industry. Founded in 1909, ACEC is a national federation of 51 state and regional organizations representing more than 5,500 engineering firms and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists nationwide. ACEC member firms drive the design of America's infrastructure and the built environment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims
December 20, 2021 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Paul A. Briganti - White and WilliamsOn November 23, 2021, the Montana Supreme Court issued an almost unanimous decision in National Indemnity Company v. State of Montana, a ten-year-old coverage dispute arising from claims against the State of Montana alleging it had failed to warn of asbestos dust conditions at vermiculite mining and milling operations in and around Libby, Montana (the Libby Mine) run by W.R. Grace & Company and its predecessors. Affirming in part and reversing in part rulings by the trial court that culminated in a $98 million judgment against the State’s CGL insurer from 1973 to 1975, the court addressed issues including the duty to defend/estoppel, the number of occurrences, “trigger of coverage,” and, in a case of first impression, allocation under Montana law.
Whether the Insurer Breached the Duty to Defend Depended Upon the Timeframe
The court looked at whether (1) the insured provided sufficient information to bring the claims within the possibility of coverage under the subject policy and (2) the insurer gave “the necessary substance to” fulfilling its duty to defend at four points in the relevant timeframe:
- The insurer did not breach its duty at the time the State initially tendered the Libby Mine claims because the State defended the claims through its self-insurance program, hired its own counsel, managed the litigation, made its own defense decisions, and took the position with the insurer that the matter was “under control” and “nothing was left to be done[.]”
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts
September 04, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWhether an insurance bad faith claim, joined by amendment to an underlying insurance coverage action, may be removed more than a year after the original action was begun has divided federal judges in the state of Florida but has not yet been considered by the Eleventh Circuit. Now, a new opinion out of the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville Division) has added to the debate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHawaii’s Act 83 put into the law that in determining if a construction defect was due to an occurrence, the courts needed to ignore any case law that arose after the insurance policy was taken out. The hope, according to Bibeka Shrestha, writing at Law360, was to provide certainty to builders. The effect, however, “further muddled the litigation landscape.”
Carl Shapiro said of the Hawaii legislature that “instead of solving the problem, they’ve created an even bigger miss.” Tred Eyerly, an insurance attorney says that the state “needs a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court.”
One result is that now the state court and the federal courts have different views on how to look at prior cases. The state courts are holding that “the uncertainly should be resolved in favor of the policyholder,” while the federal courts “pointed to earlier case law that nixed coverage for these types of claims.
The legislature seems unlikely to resolve this confusion on its own. One legislative liaison said that “nobody knew how to pass a law saying ‘you will grant coverage.’” Brian Yamane also told Law360 that “there has been no attempt by anybody to introducte legislation to amend the law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
