New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client
January 02, 2019 —
Steven J. Pearse, Esq. & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerSenate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES.
California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern.
SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code.
This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation.
California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation.
The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims
November 02, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer finding there was no duty to defend. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23918 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020).
Mac Contractors entered into a contract with homeowners to serve as general contractor for the construction of a custom residence. Problems arose during construction and Mac eventually led the job site before completing the project. The home owners sued, alleging that Mac and its subcontractors had left the residence "replete with construction defects." Damages were sought for having to repair and remediate all defective work performed by Mac.
Mac tendered under its CGL policy to its insurer, Southern-Owners. A defense was granted, but later withdrawn when Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Mac. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Southern-Owners based on the exclusion for "Damage to Your Work." The Eleventh Circuit vacated on appeal, concluding that the underlying complaint could fairly be construed to allege damages that fell outside of the exclusion.
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
Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit
May 24, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions.
First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGarret Murai in his California Law Blog declared that “things just got a lot tougher for contractors and material suppliers in the Golden State.” In his blog, Murai analyzed the recent case Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Eastern Municipal Water District, Case No. E054618 (July 23, 2014), in which “the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District found that a subcontractor’s public works payment bond claim was time barred because its stop payment notice was served ‘before’ a notice of completion was recorded.”
Murai explained the importance of the ruling and how it changed the status quo: “Whereas before, it was commonly understood that you could serve a stop payment notice ‘during’ construction (after all, that was the point wasn’t it, to stop construction funds before they are paid out), now you may have only have a 30 day window (probably less) to serve a stop notice within 30 days after a notice of completion or notice of cessation is recorded.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?
May 20, 2015 —
Anna-Louise Jackson – BloombergTwo indexes that gauge U.S. home-remodeling activity suggest a slower pace ahead. Wall Street seems to disagree.
Future market conditions measured by the National Association of Home Builders’ Remodeling Market Index fell to 55.4 in the three months ended March 31 from a record-high of 59.5 in the fourth quarter, data from the group showed Thursday. Similarly, a leading indicator of remodeling work created by Harvard University projects annual growth in home-improvement spending will slow to 2.9 percent by year end from a projected 6.5 percent in the first quarter.
While these measures suggest sluggishness, investors don’t seem to mind. Following a “relatively weak year” for renovations in 2014, “people are warming up to housing again,” said Mike Wood, an analyst in New York at Macquarie Group Ltd.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anna-Louise Jackson, Bloomberg
#11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFScott Calkins and
Anthony Gaeta of
Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian.
“While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute
October 26, 2017 —
Austin D. Moody - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On Tuesday, October 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a 17-year-old battle over whether Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) will have to help cover the costs of asbestos-related injury suits that were filed against it after insurers began to universally exclude coverage for asbestos-related liabilities. The Court considered the arguments made by two excess insurers, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (St. Paul) and parent Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (Travelers), that the Court should overturn a state appellate court’s ruling that Honeywell does not have to contribute to these costs.
During the course of this case, Honeywell has sought coverage under more than 300 different policies, ultimately settling with all insurers except St. Paul and Travelers, who had issued a total of 10 excess policies to Honeywell’s predecessor, Bendix Corp. (Bendix) between 1968 and 1983. Honeywell has only sought coverage for claims made by individuals who allege that they were first exposed to asbestos prior to 1987.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Moody may be contacted at
adm@sdvlaw.com
Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage
May 13, 2014 —
Andrew Zajac – BloombergFollowing two years in which its big-bank peers paid almost $2 billion to resolve fraud accusations by the Federal Housing Administration, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) has decided it isn’t giving up so easily.
Wells Fargo was one of five banks that agreed in 2012 to a nationwide, $25 billion settlement with the Justice Department over mortgage wrongdoing that included botched foreclosures. The FHA then took additional action against four of the banks, including Wells Fargo, for related housing-crisis wrongdoing. Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. decided to settle those matters. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which argued the nationwide settlement should have blocked the new FHA claims against it, chose to fight.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Zajac, BloombergMr. Zajac may be contacted at
azajac@bloomberg.net
