Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes
October 16, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsOne of the most powerful weapons in labor’s arsenal is a strike. Like most powerful weapons there is a dichotomy in a strike. On one hand, it can bring about concessions from management that labor seeks. On the other hand, it can permanently change the relationship between management and labor. However, one thing is certain, strike are – to put it mildly – chaotic.
During this chaotic period, employees and employers may wonder what rights they have during union-initiated strikes. We provide some brief explanations below, along with how union litigation can help enforce your rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves
April 17, 2019 —
Ivo G. Danielle – Newmeyer & DillionCybersecurity breaches involving law firms are on the rise with each passing year. Law firms are prime targets for cyber criminals seeking confidential and sensitive information because of the various types of legal work that law firms normally handle for their clients. Whether it be mergers and acquisitions, the use of intellectual property, purchase agreements, bankruptcy or even litigation involving divorce, law firms are a rich depository for highly confidential and sensitive information. As a result, law firms must employ comprehensive security measures to protect themselves from security breaches or risk being on the losing end of a costly malpractice claim, and suffer severe reputational harm.
Law Firms Continue To Be Targeted By Cybercriminals
According to the American Bar Association ("ABA") 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report, 23% of the law firms who participated in the survey reported that their law firm experienced a data breach. Although this may be just a 1% increase from the 22% who reported a breach in 2017, it is important to understand that this is an increase of 8% from the stable percentages reported from 2013 through 2016.1 The 2018 survey report also revealed that security breaches fluctuated with firm size – 14% for solo law firms, 24% for firms employing 2-9 attorneys, approximately 24% for firms with 10-49 attorneys, 42% for firms with 50-99 attorneys, and approximately 31% for those firms employing 100 or more attorneys.
Latest Law Firm Security Breaches
The notorious criminal group called "The Dark Overlord" has a history of committing data breaches of high profile companies such as Gorilla Glue, Netflix, Larson Studios, multiple healthcare companies, and Little Red Door Cancer Agency. Their goal is simple – steal sensitive information and then extort payment from the victims by threatening to release the sensitive information to the public.
On December 31, 2018, this cybercriminal group announced to the world that they had acquired 18,000 documents containing highly sensitive legal information related to insurance based litigation connected to the 9/11 tragedy. The stolen information was the attorney/client property of Lloyd's of London, Silverstein Properties, and Hiscox Syndicates, Ltd. In its announcement, The Dark Overlord boasted that they were in possession of client sensitive information, such as: "emails; retainer agreements; non-disclosure agreements; settlements, litigation strategies; liability analysis; defense formation; collection of expert witness testimonies; communication with government officials in countries all over the world; voice mails; dealings with the FBI, USDOJ, DOD, confidential communications, and so much more."
Subsequent to the data breach, The Dark Overlord announced to the public that they designed a compensation plan that would allow for public crowd-funding for its organization to permit the public to view the stolen information in exchange for bitcoin payment. The more public funding it receives, the more stolen sensitive information will be unlocked and released to the public. It is estimated that this cybercriminal group already distributed information to the public on two separate occasions during the month of January 2019.
High profile cybersecurity breaches of law firms is nothing new – for example, the infamous Panama Papers breach, where cybercriminals leaked 11.5 million documents exposing the shadowy business of setting up offshore corporations as tax shelters for businesses, celebrities, and politicians - and the infamous Petya Malware attack which resulted in a digital lockdown of one of the world's largest law firms, DLA Piper. However, despite the infrequency of publicized cyber-attacks of law firms by the media, the FBI has recently announced that law firms should expect an increase in security attacks by cybercriminals because law firms are now viewed as "one-stop shops" for cybercriminals. Therefore, in order to combat the inevitable increase in cyber-attacks, law firms must get prepared.
How Law Firms Can Protect Themselves
All law firms will agree that the most serious consequence of a security breach for their firm would be the unauthorized access to sensitive client data. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.1 and 1.62 and related Comments, require an attorney to take competent and reasonable measures to safeguard information relating to their clients. This duty to "safeguard' information imposes a significant challenge to firms when using technology in connection with protecting client information because most law firms are not savvy with technology and lack proper cyber security training.
In order for a law firm to protect itself from security breaches and inadvertently violate its duty of safeguarding a client's sensitive information, it is important to take the following actions:
- Start by taking an inventory and risk assessment of the firm to determine what needs to be protected – the inventory should include both technology and data;
- Develop, implement and maintain an appropriate cybersecurity program that complies with applicable ethical and legal obligations;
- Ensure the cybersecurity program addresses people, policies and procedures, and technology. The cybersecurity program must designate an individual or a group to be in charge and coordinate security;
- Develop an incident response plan scaled to the size of the firm;
- Continually train staff and attorneys to identify and understand potential cybersecurity threats;
- Consider implementing a third-party assessment of firm's cybersecurity program and policies;
- Purchase cyber liability for insurance which not only covers first party losses to law firms (like lost productivity, data restoration, and legal expenses) but also liability protection to third parties;
- Implement authentication and access controls for network, computers and mobile devices used by the firm's staff and attorneys;
- Consider the use of full-drive encryption for computers and mobile devices;
- Have staff and attorneys avoid and/or limit the use of public WiFi when working remotely; and
- Create a disaster recovery plan to backup all data in the event of a cyber-attack or natural catastrophe.
Continually reviewing, implementing, training and updating a firm's cybersecurity program and protocols will help safeguard sensitive and confidential client information and/or data. No law firm wants to be the next data breach headline – so take the necessary steps to avoid a potential disaster.
1 Past ABA Legal Technology Surveys reported 14% in 2016, 15% in 2015, 14% in 2014 and 15% in 2013.
2 On November 1, 2018, California adopted ethics rules patterned after the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion's Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For almost 35 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 law, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, 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
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017
September 01, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that eight of the firm’s attorneys were recently selected for inclusion and will be recognized in their respective areas in
The Best Lawyers in America© 2017. They are:
- Michael Cucchissi: Real Estate Law
- Jeffrey M. Dennis: Insurance Law
- Gregory L. Dillion: Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation- Construction, Litigation- Real Estate
- Joseph A. Ferrentino: Litigation- Construction, Litigation- Real Estate
- Thomas F. Newmeyer: Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Litigation- Real Estate
- John A. O’Hara: Litigation- Construction
- Bonnie T. Roadarmel: Insurance Law
- Carol Sherman Zaist: Commercial Litigation
Beyond the above recognition, Greg Dillion was also named the Best Lawyers® 2017 Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year" in Orange County.
Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication for the legal profession. Attorneys are chosen through intensive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers evaluate their professional peers. Best Lawyers listings are published in almost 70 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections.
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
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida
November 18, 2019 —
Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub LiebermanOn July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position.
Reprinted courtesy of
Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States
December 14, 2020 —
Robert S. Peckar & Crystal T. Dang - Construction ExecutiveIn these times of easy and instant access to news from around the globe, the effects of major earthquakes in Indonesia and Mexico, cyclones in Southeast Asia, Tsunamis around the world, volcanoes in Europe in unexpected places and, of course, raging forest fires and hurricanes in the United States are frequently in the news. Accompanying each of these disasters are immediate threats to construction projects, both physical and those affecting the safety and health of personnel.
However, after the dust settles or the waters recede, myriad issues will become obstacles to the road to recovery for a contractor to navigate. In 2020 alone, the volume of strong storms and forest fires have focused so much attention on the impact of disasters. The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines in anticipation of disasters, for reviewing the impact of a disaster as it is happening, and developing a mitigation plan to limit losses.
Anticipating Disasters
The best time to prepare for a disaster on a project is before the project starts. Reviewing contract rights, insurance policies and company disaster response protocols while a category 3 hurricane is a day away is not a best practice. To avoid falling into that situation, a contractor should follow the following guidelines. Doing so facilitates proper action during the actual disaster itself and in the aftermath.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert S. Peckar & Crystal T. Dang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Peckar may be contacted at rpeckar@pecklaw.com
Ms. Dang may be contacted at cdang@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill
May 07, 2015 —
Derek Lindenschmidt – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCSenate Bill 177, the Colorado housing community’s effort to reinvigorate the construction of attainable multi-family housing and quell construction defect lawsuits, was killed by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Monday evening on a party-line vote. Although the bill received significant bipartisan support in the Senate, a broad coalition of municipalities, builders, contractors, and non-profit organizations was unable to convince a pre-determined “kill” committee of the merits and benefits of the bill.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Lindenschmidt may be contacted at
lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com
Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson
August 04, 2021 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistAlthough the focus of most subrogation cases is usually on proving liability, determining the appropriate measure of damages is just as important. Sometimes turning on a nuanced argument for recoverability, an adverse holding can significantly boost or reduce the total damages in a case. The Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (Court) recently decided such an issue in a case involving subrogation, holding that the defendants owed much more than they originally anticipated.
In Five Solas v. Ram Realty Servs., No. 4D19-2211 2021, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546, the Court reviewed the appropriate setoff in damages that the defendants were entitled to when measuring the recoverable damages. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding, which held that the defendants were entitled to a setoff that limited the jury’s award to $104,481.75. Instead the Court held that the defendants were only entitled to a setoff equal to the excess recovery over replacement cost.
The case involves, among other things, property damage sustained by building owner Five Solas (Owner) and its lessee William Price, P.A. from a collapsed wall originating from the property of the defendants, Ram Realty Services, LLC and Sodix Fern, LLC d/b/a Alexander Lofts (collectively referred to as Defendants). Owner’s carrier, Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost), paid out its policy limit of $430,518.25 to Owner for damage to the building. Owner then pursued its claim against the tortfeasors for the remaining damages not paid by its carrier.[1] Foremost also pursued a subrogation claim, but settled its subrogation claim with Defendants, assigning its subrogation rights to Defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
