Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits
June 19, 2023 —
Patricia Santelle, Adam Berardi & Lynndon Groff - White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams recently obtained summary judgment against an insured on behalf of an insurer and a guarantor, establishing that two multi-year insurance policies provide per occurrence limits on a per policy rather than a per year basis, which shielded potential exposure by over $100 million.
The insured had previously sought and obtained coverage under two policies in connection with a single occurrence arising out of massive environmental contamination claims involving a large industrial site. The issue of whether the policies provide per occurrence limits on a policy term or annual basis was not resolved in this earlier litigation.
The first policy was effective for three years and provides per occurrence limits of $40 million. The second policy was effective for up to three years and provides per occurrence limits of $15 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia Santelle, White and Williams LLP,
Adam Berardi, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon Groff, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)
May 10, 2017 —
Angela Reston-Nunez – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMost employers know that companywide policies or practices that do not strictly comply with applicable state or federal employment laws can expose employers to class action lawsuits by large numbers of employees seeking recovery of massive sums in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Unfortunately, traditional class action lawsuits are not the only representative actions employers should be concerned with. Recent litigation trends have shown that California’s lesser known Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) can be equally, if not more harmful to employers than class actions due to steep penalties for minor violations.
WHAT IS PAGA?
Under PAGA, “aggrieved employees” can sue employers for alleged Labor Code violations. Like class actions, a PAGA plaintiff sues on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other workers. However, unlike class action plaintiffs, PAGA plaintiffs do not seek damages; rather, they seek civil and statutory penalties formerly recoverable solely by state agencies in enforcement actions.
The distinction between recovery of damages in class actions and recovery of penalties in PAGA actions reflects the often-insidious nature of PAGA claims. While workers have long alleged “derivative” PAGA claims for penalties in connection with more substantive underlying Labor Code violations (meal or rest break violations, for example), we have seen a recent spike in PAGA suits alleging hyper-technical Labor Code violations with no underlying substantive violation, and where the “aggrieved employees” have suffered no actual harm.
WHAT'S AT STAKE?
Equally troubling for employers is the method by which significant penalties are aggregated. With a few significant exceptions, penalties generally range from $50 to $250 per violation. At first blush, this may not seem like much, however total penalties rise rapidly when considering that calculations are made on a per-employee and a per-pay period basis.
AN EXAMPLE ON HOW PAGA WORKS
Consider the following example based on one recent case:
Issue: An employee brought a PAGA-only lawsuit on behalf of himself and 400 other “aggrieved employees” against his employer for alleged Labor Code violations.
Claim: The employee claimed the employer’s 30-year practice of paying employees 9 days after the close of the applicable payroll period violated Labor Code Section 204(d), which requires payment to be made within 7 days of the close of the payroll period. The employee claimed that, under PAGA, the employer was liable for a minimum penalty of $100 per employee, per pay period, going back at least one year (the statutory limitations period for PAGA claims).
Exposure: With 400 employees, 24 pay periods per year, and $100 per violation, the plaintiff sought a minimum of $960,000 in penalties (not including substantial attorneys’ fees, costs and interest also available under PAGA), despite offering no evidence of harm suffered by the employees or prior notice of the issue.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to a draconian penalties scheme, there are a myriad of additional aggravating factors for employers involved in PAGA litigation, such as:
- PAGA plaintiffs are not required to meet the rigorous class certification standards required of class action plaintiffs, meaning plaintiffs’ attorneys may be more likely to bring meritless “strike suits” aimed at obtaining quick settlements based on significant alleged penalties exposure.
- 75% of PAGA penalties recovered by way of settlement or judgment are directed to the state of California, while the "aggrieved employees” only keep 25%, reinforcing the notion that PAGA claims are frequently attorneys’-fee-driven, rather than for protecting employees.
STEPS FOR EMPLOYERS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
Fortunately, there are a number of measures employers can take prior to and during wage and hour litigation which can dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, exposure to substantial penalties and damages. This includes:
- Regular reviews. Prior to litigation, we recommend regular detailed reviews of company policies and practices in order to identify areas of possible concern and ensure compliance with California’s ever-changing labor laws.
- Take action. On receipt of a new PAGA claim, taking immediate action to remedy an alleged violation within the Labor Code’s 33-day “safe harbor” time-period may help limit an employer’s exposure, and could bar a plaintiff from filing suit at all.
- Be aggressive. Once a PAGA or class action claim is in litigation, a proactive, aggressive approach to claim evaluation, investigation and litigation is critical.
For these reasons and more, it’s in an employers’ best interest to monitor these issues closely and seek input when appropriate.
Angela Reston-Nunez is a labor and employment attorney in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. For questions regarding PAGA, class action or individual wage and hour issues, or other employment law matters, please feel free to contact Angela Reston-Nunez at (925) 988-3249 or angela.reston-nunez@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
New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height
January 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe new LG headquarters project in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, has been challenged by various environmental groups because of what the groups see “as a blight on the Hudson River landscape,” according to the New York Times. The problem isn’t the building itself, but the proposed height of the tower: LG “plans to construct eight stories, 143 feet total, in an area previously zoned for a maximum of 35 feet. The height restriction was first lifted through a variance, which has been challenged in State Superior Court in one of two lawsuits filed to protect the view. Subsequently the land was rezoned to allow for a taller building.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a New Jersey conservation group are continuing to fight against the removal of the height restriction. “This is like if somebody tried to build a high-rise next to Yellowstone,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview with the New York Times. “It’s a national issue.”
However, there is also local support for this project, “which LG has said will be environmentally sensitive and produce jobs,” reported the New York Times.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens
August 13, 2014 —
Benjamin Katz – BloombergSIG Plc (SHI) earnings surged 21 percent in the first half as the distributor of building products benefited from a strengthening recovery in the U.K. housing market as well as procurement savings.
Underlying operating profit rose to 47.8 million pounds ($80 million) from 39.6 million pounds a year earlier, the Sheffield, England-based company said in a statement today. Sales in the U.K. and Ireland from continuing operations climbed 14 percent to 650 million pounds, offsetting flat revenue in continental Europe.
“Trading conditions in the U.K. have continued to gather momentum, led by the revival in the housing market,” Chief Executive Officer Stuart Mitchell said in the statement. “The group’s first-half performance and progress on its strategic initiatives provide a strong base on which to achieve its full-year expectations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin Katz, BloombergMr. Katz may be contacted at
bkatz38@bloomberg.net
Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center
December 15, 2016 —
Jeff Rubenstone – Engineering News-RecordA fire broke out Dec. 14 at a hospital tower under construction at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. The blaze sent a column of thick black smoke up through the Manhattan skyline.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-RecordMr. Rubenstone may be contacted at
rubenstonej@enr.com
Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe West Virginia Supreme Court previously held that construction defects were not covered under a CGL policy. The Court, however, reversed itself in Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2013 W.Va. LEXIS 724 (W.V. June 18, 2013).
The underlying complaint against the general contractor alleged various defects in the plaintiff’s recently constructed house, including an uneven concrete floor, water infiltration through the roof and chimney joint, a sagging support beam, and numerous cracks in the drywall walls and partitions throughout the house. Erie Insurance denied coverage. The insured general contractor sued, but the trial court found that faulty workmanship was not sufficient to give rise to an “occurrence.”
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed its prior rulings determining there was no coverage for construction defects. The court recognized its prior position was in the minority, as is Hawaii's position on coverage for construction defects. See Group Builders Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 148, 231 P.3d 67, 73 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Now joining the majority position, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that defective workmanship causing property damage was an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. Further, the homeowner had demonstrated that she sustained "property damage" as a result of the allegedly defective construction of her home.
The trial court also determined that the business risk exclusions barred coverage. Again, the West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space
November 30, 2016 —
The Associated Press (Jocelyn Gecker) – BloombergSan Francisco (AP) -- Engineers in San Francisco have tunneled underground to try and understand the sinking of the 58-story Millennium Tower. Now comes an analysis from space.
The European Space Agency has released detailed data from satellite imagery that shows the skyscraper in San Francisco's financial district is continuing to sink at a steady rate — and perhaps faster than previously known.
The luxury high-rise that opened its doors in 2009 has been dubbed the Leaning Tower of San Francisco. It has sunk about 16 inches into landfill and is tilting several inches to the northwest.
A dispute over the building's construction in the seismically active city has spurred numerous lawsuits involving the developer, the city and owners of its multimillion dollar apartments.
Engineers have estimated the building is sinking at a rate of about 1-inch per year. The Sentinel-1 twin satellites show almost double that rate based on data collected from April 2015 to September 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement
April 15, 2015 —
David W. Evans and Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Britton v. Girardi (No. B249232 – Filed 4/1/2015), the Second Appellate District upheld the trial court’s dismissal due to the statute of limitations based on an inference it drew from a letter attached to the complaint, while reaffirming its prior application of the limitations period in Probate Code section 16460 for fraud claims in the related case of Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2/27/2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105.
In Britton, just as in Prakashpalan, the plaintiffs sued the attorneys who had represented them in connection with claims against their insurer arising out of the Northridge earthquake. In 1997, the attorneys had settled that litigation for more than $100 million. The plaintiffs allege that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty by (1) failing to provide an accounting for the settlement, (2) failing to obtain their informed consent to the settlement, and (3) concealing their misappropriation of the settlement funds. They claim that they did not discover this wrongdoing until nearly fifteen years later, in 2012, when the Prakashpalans contacted them about their settlement. Significantly, the plaintiffs attached as an exhibit to the complaint a page of the November 3, 1997 letter to the Prakashpalans (rather than the plaintiffs), which stated that a retired judge who presided over the settlement had determined the allocations and the attorneys could not distribute the proceeds until the plaintiffs signed the “Master Settlement Agreement” by which the plaintiffs agreed to its terms and to give up all claims against the insurer.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
