Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?
November 15, 2021 —
Colin Holley - ConsensusDocsThere are four main types of intellectual property (IP) – patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Many companies have IP rights of all four types. Very different steps are required to protect different types of IP. Your company should work with an experienced IP attorney to develop and continuously update a comprehensive IP protection plan. And for the reasons discussed below, it is important for your company’s IP protection plan to be closely coordinated with employment and contracting practices.
Patents are rights that may be granted to protect uniquely-original and usable inventions for a prescribed period of years, the length of which depends on the patent type. To register a patent, an application must be filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which will decide whether the invention is patentable. A registration gives the owner the ability to prevent others from using or selling the invention without permission. Registered patents may be challenged in court on several grounds, but mounting a successful challenge is a very expensive proposition. A patent registration is thus a highly valued asset and is key to preventing others from using or copying your invention, unless you have a foolproof way to keep your invention secret and out of the hands of competitors. On the other hand, if it is possible to keep the invention secret for enough time to gain a commercial advantage over competitors and the enforceability of the patent is questionable, registering a patent may be a mistake because the invention must be publicly disclosed in excruciating detail, for all competitors to see.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colin Holley, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLPMr. Holley may be contacted at
cholley@watttieder.com
Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars
August 10, 2020 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogACS is very honored and pleased to announce nine members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients.
To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers.
John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as the Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State. Mr. Ahlers stated that “It was humbling to receive this distinction, particularly considering the many talented Super Lawyers in the State and I am a ‘construction lawyer’ to boot! I am grateful for the confidence my many colleagues in the bar have in me, by honoring me with their vote”.
Founding partner Paul R. Cressman Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State.
Four other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen, Lawrence S. Glosser and Ryan W. Sternoff.
Two other firm members, partner Lindsay (Taft) Watkins and associate Scott D. MacDonald are also recognized as Super Lawyer Rising Stars, which recognizes attorneys either 40 years old or younger, or in practice 10 years or less.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSaying that "new home inventory does not exist," Mark Krueger of ArchCrest Commercial Partners tells the Reno Gazette Journal that this had lead to a problem, in that there are no homes for prospective buyers in the Reno and Sparks area. Adding to the problem is that investors are buying up resale homes with the intent of selling them at a profit later, which adds to the scarcity of available homes.
While the residential market is suffering from not enough homes to satisfy buyers, there are ample commercial properties. As a result, there are no plans for any additional retail, office, or industrial projects in the Reno area for 2013. Vacancy rates are expected to fall only slightly to 12.3% for industrial properties and 17.7% for retail properties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana Feld Receives 2024 OCCDL Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award
September 30, 2024 —
Linda Carter - Kahana FeldIRVINE, CA – Sep. 12, 2024 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm received the 2024 Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award from the Orange County Coalition for Diversity in the Law (OCCDL). The firm will be recognized at an awards gala at The Westin South Coast Plaza on October 3.
Each year, the OCCDL recognizes individuals and organizations who have advanced diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Orange County legal community, whether through their excellence in the law or their direct efforts to promote DEI. Kahana Feld was recognized for programs such as its DEI book club and its regular webinars on topics like implicit bias. The firm supports various DEI organizations and initiatives in the Orange County area, including the Orange County Asian American Bar Association, the Orange County Women Lawyers Association, and the Jewish Federation of Orange County.
The OCCDL is a collaborative effort of professionals from leading Orange County law firms and other community partners promoting the advancement of diverse attorneys in Orange County. The OCCDL partners with local schools and organizations to increase community involvement and provides education focused on diversity to students and attorneys.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Carter, Kahana FeldMs. Carter may be contacted at
lcarter@kahanafeld.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose
December 29, 2020 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in Puget Sound Energy, Inc v. Pilchuck Contractors, Inc.[1] demonstrates the broad application of the construction statute of repose to work performed by contractors.
The construction statute of repose[2] bars certain legal claims based on construction activity if the alleged harm caused by the activity does not occur within a specific timeframe. The claims covered by the construction statute of repose include:
all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered, or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property.[3] Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship
June 20, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiGranting the insured's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, the court determined the insurers had a duty to defend. Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co. & Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59044 (S. D. N. Y. March 30, 2022).
Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. held policies from Chubb and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to cover its operations in connection with the development of a pollution treatment system in North Carolina. When the project ultimately failed, an underlying action sought damages from Suez, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. Suez filed this case seeking a declaratory judgment that Chubb and Liberty were each obligated to defend and indemnify Suez in the underlying case.
The City of High Point hired Suez to upgrade the facilities at its wastewater treatment plant staring in 2021. Because mercury levels were too high in emissions from sewage-sludge incinerators, Suez began working on the installation of a Mercury Removal System. After installation, a leak occurred in a component known as the heat exchanger. The leak caused the system to shut down and weeks-long repairs began.
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
Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies
October 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn a major ruling, the California Supreme Court applied a statutory provision to overrule its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) and ruled that liability policies can be assigned despite non-assignment provisions. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Henkel when it also found anti-consent provisions valid. See Del Monte Fresh Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007) [see posts here and here].
For decades, Fluor Corporation performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries. Beginning in 1971, Hartford issued up to 11 CGL policies to Fluor from 1971 to 1986. Each policy contained a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest under the policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon."
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fluor Corporation was sued in numerous lawsuits claiming personal injury from asbestos exposure. Fluor Corporation tendered the early lawsuits to Hartford, which accepted the defense. Fluor Corporation subsequently went through a reverse spinoff under which a newly formed subsidiary, Fluor 2, took over the continuation of the company's EPC businesses. The original Fluor transferred all of its EPC-related assets and liabilities to Fluor-2, making Fluor-2 the parent of the EPC subsidiaries. The transaction did not except any insurance rights from the transfer of "any and all" assets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
