Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected
December 29, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiHaving failed to adequately secure cyber coverage, the insured law firm's lawsuit was properly dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment. Johnson v. Smith Bros. Ins., LLC, 2020 Vt. Unpub. LEXIS 98 (Vt. Sept. 4, 2020).
The law firm attended a CLE seminar presented by the Vermont Attorneys Title Insurance Corporation. Scott Garcia, an employee of Smith Brothers, an insurance agency, gave a presentation on professional liability insurance focusing on cybersecurity issues, including fraudulent scams. After the presentation, one of the law firms members spoke with Garcia and expressed an interest in securing a professional malpractice policy with cyber security coverage. Garcia said he would check the firm's current policy, but was confident he could provide better coverage. It was unclear whether the firm ever provided its current policy.
A couple of weeks later, the firm submitted an online application for professional liability coverage through the Smith Brothers' website. The application neither referenced the conversation with Garcia nor specifically requested cybersecurity coverage. Smith Brothers then sent the policy covering a one-year period. The policy included coverage for up to $10,000 for losses resulting from a network or security breach in the performance of professional services. A year later, the firm renewed the same policy.
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
What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?
March 18, 2019 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs?
In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment
February 24, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIs the enforceability of a no-damage-for-delay provision inappropriate for resolution on a summary judgment? The recent decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Kingston Environmental Services, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc., 2019 WL 6178676 (D. Hawaii 2019), dealing with Florida law, suggests that it is inappropriate for a summary judgment resolution, particularly when there is a right to a jury trial.
In this case, a prime contractor was hired on a federal construction project in Hawaii. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor and its surety under the Miller Act. Of interest, the subcontractor was seeking to recover for the costs it incurred due to construction delays. The prime contractor moved for summary judgment as to the no-damage-for-delay provision in the subcontract. The no-damages-for-delay provision read as follows (and it is a well-written no-damage-for-delay provision):
The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the commencement or execution of the Work, caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether negligent or not, of the Contractor including other subcontractors or material suppliers to the Project, its agents, employees, or third parties acting on behalf of the Contractor. The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
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
Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor
July 25, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022).
The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system.
The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide.
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
Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability
January 06, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows.
An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler
Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision.
This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
July 09, 2019 —
Melinda S. Gentile & Cadian T. Baker - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019.
Bills Becoming Law in 2019
HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019.
This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond.
(1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions:
The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed;
The materials furnished or to be furnished;
The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due.
A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage.
(2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Gentile may be contacted at
mgentile@pecklaw.com
Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFFormer Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Vinny Testaverde and his wife Mitzi filed suit December 20, 2013 claiming breach of contract and building code violations on their $5 million, Odessa, Florida mansion, according to the Tampa Tribune. The Testaverdes allege that their six-year old, 6,700 square foot home has multiple defects, including “wet floors and walls when it rains and a grand staircase leading to the front door that is sinking, taking with it two columns that support the porch roof,” The Tampa Tribune reports.
Gray Homes of Tampa Bay were contracted by the couple to build their mansion on Lake Keystone. The Tampa Tribune stated that several months before filing suit, the Testaverdes sent a certified letter to Gray Homes stating they had uncovered “a series of defects.” According to the article, Gray Homes had not yet responded to the Tampa Tribune’s message asking for a comment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
