Suit Limitation Provision Upheld
March 04, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe policy's one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018).
The Oswalds' hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause.
The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this.
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
D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations
November 15, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Delaware court recently
granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We
previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach
November 21, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & J. Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion LLPCybersecurity is a growing concern for today's businesses. While it's always advisable to take whatever action possible to avoid a cybersecurity breach, no security measures can be one hundred percent perfect, and malicious actors are always innovating and trying to find new security flaws. The implementation of new technology brings with it new opportunities, but also potentially new vulnerabilities. And hackers have one major advantage – those working to defend against cyber-attacks have to try to find and fix every potential exploit, whereas those on the other side only need to find one. As demonstrated by recent high-profile breaches at Google and Facebook, even massive tech companies with access to vast financial resources and top engineering talent can still fall prey to cyber-attacks. Therefore, understanding how to respond to a breach is just as critical to a company's cybersecurity plan as attempting to prevent one. Below are a few solid tips on how to react when an organization's cybersecurity has been compromised.
Plan in Advance
The best response to a cybersecurity breach begins before the breach ever happens. A written incident response plan is of paramount importance. In the immediate aftermath of a cybersecurity breach, people will be scared and stressed. In those circumstances, they will be more likely to be able to respond effectively if there is a plan laid out for them and they have received training on how to follow that plan. Make sure that employees are trained on the parts of the plan that are relevant to them. Most may only need to know who to report to if they suspect a breach may have occurred, while those who will be involved in the breach response will need more in-depth training. The plan should also be updated regularly to account for staffing changes, new technology, and the evolving legal landscape. The law may also require a plan for responding to cybersecurity breaches, depending on the jurisdiction.
Call Your Lawyer- Early and Often
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, attorneys are critical in responding to a cybersecurity breach. The most obvious reason is to advise clients on their legal obligations and potential liability – and this is indeed an important function. The patchwork of federal and state regulations governing cybersecurity is something laypeople – and even non-specialized attorneys – should navigate with caution. Of equal importance is the preservation of confidential communication under the attorney-client privilege. The presence of an attorney helps to improve the security of information surrounding the response to the breach because correspondence with that attorney is privileged, allowing candid evaluation of the breach. The ability to assert attorney-client privilege regarding an internal investigation and response can be quite useful in the event of a later external investigation or litigation.
To Disclose or Not to Disclose?
An important question that needs to be asked in the wake of a cybersecurity breach is whether the incident must be disclosed, and if so, when, how, and to whom should such disclosures be made? While many understandably wish that their mistakes and failures will never see the light of day, there are also many people who will want to know when a company's cybersecurity has been breached. Shareholders want to know – and may have a right to know – if such a breach has harmed the business. Consumers want to know if their personal information has been compromised so that they can protect against identity theft. Furthermore, state breach notification laws may mandate certain disclosures to consumers depending on facts surrounding the breach. Legal requirements from states, the federal government, and even foreign entities may also require companies to provide notices to one or more regulatory agencies.
An attorney can advise on whether a company is legally required to provide any notice in the aftermath of a data breach, but even though notice may not be a legal requirement in a particular set of circumstances, it may still be prudent to give it anyway. Google decided not to disclose the recent breach of data from its Google+ service to avoid a PR and regulatory backlash, but the fact that it had happened eventually leaked out anyway. Even though legal experts have opined in the aftermath that Google likely was not obligated to disclose the breach, the fact that it did not caused exactly what Google attempted to avoid, but with magnified effect. "Google Experiences Consumer Data Breach" may not have been a good headline, but "Google Hides Consumer Data Breach" was a worse one.
Remember: Protection Is Key
No company wants a cybersecurity breach, but past experience has increasingly demonstrated that this is not a question of "if" but rather one of "when" and "how bad." Planning ahead and knowing what to do when a data breach does happen can ensure that an organization bounces back from a breach as smoothly and painlessly as possible.
Scott Satkin and Kyle Janecek are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Kyle at kyle.jancecek@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 cybersecurity, 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
Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.”
How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.”
Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project.
“In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported.
During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York
May 29, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneNew York recently enacted legislation known as Carlos’ Law, which increases penalties for corporate liability for the death of, or serious injury to, an employee. The bill, S.621B / A.4947B, was named after Carlos Moncayo, a construction worker killed in a trench collapse on a New York City construction project. Moncayo’s employer repeatedly flouted safety rules and ignored warnings of dangerous conditions on its construction site before failing to properly support the trench that collapsed and killed Moncayo. Moncayo’s employer was convicted for his death, but the penalty was light. The company was sentenced to pay only $10,000, the maximum penalty at the time for any company convicted of a felony in New York State. The legislature responded with Carlos’ Law, which increases accountability for “employers,” and expands the scope of “employees” covered.
The corporate criminal law, NY Penal § 20.20(2)(c)(iv), imposes liability on an employer when “the conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the corporation, and the offense is . . . in relation to a crime involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.” An “agent” of an employer is any “director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.” § 20.20(a). An “employee” now includes any person providing labor or services for remuneration for a private entity or business within New York State without regard to an individual’s immigration status, and includes part-time workers, independent contractors, apprentices, day laborers and other workers. § 10.00 (22). The penalties for criminal corporate liability for the death or serious injury of an employee now include maximums of $500,000 when centered on a felony, and $300,000 when centered on a misdemeanor. § 80.10(1)(a) and (b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
December 20, 2021 —
James M. Grosser & David W. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn November 19, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), a bill that represents a large portion of the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda. Among other spending and tax measures, the bill includes an unprecedented expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Four proposals are headlining this expansion:
- Increasing the 9% LIHTC allocation cap by 10% plus inflation annually from 2022 to 2024. With this increase, the 2024 LIHTC allocation cap will rise to $3.97 per capita and a small state minimum of around $4.58 million, constituting a 41 percent increase in allocable LIHTC over current levels. The allocation cap would then decrease to $2.65 per capita and a small state minimum of $3.12 million in 2025 and would thereafter be indexed to inflation from the 2025 baseline.
- Reducing the 50% threshold for 4% tax-exempt bond-financed projects to 25% for five years, beginning in 2022.
Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Grosser, Pillsbury and
David W. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. Grosser may be contacted at james.grosser@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations
August 03, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogBecause of the potential exposure associated with wildfires, many insurers have attempted to withdraw from the property coverage market in various states. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the challenges businesses and individuals face in obtaining wildfire insurance coverage, and the regulatory scheme that is intended to help them secure adequate coverage.
Given the increasing exposures associated with climate change, numerous insurers have sought to withdraw from the wildfire-related coverage market or increase rates to a level where they are effectively unavailable. States have been resistant to their doing so. As one commentator reports, “[e]ven where insurers have tried to withdraw policies or raise rates to reduce climate-related liabilities, state regulators have forced them to provide affordable coverage anyway, simply subsidizing the cost of underwriting such a risk policy or, in some cases, offering it themselves.” At least 30 states have developed regulation, referred to as “Fair Access to Insurance Requirements” (FAIR), to ensure the continued availability of insurance. The FAIR plan provides a channel to insurance for property owners who would be stuck without any reasonable access to insurance without state intervention.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement
January 03, 2022 —
Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery.
As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
