Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim
June 15, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Houston law firm of Eggleston & Briscoe successfully defended their client, Colony Insurance Company, which was being sued for $22 million over roof hail damage. The Summer Hill Village Community Association did not convince a jury that the insurance company had violated state law or breached its contract when it denied coverage for the roofs. The homeowners association contended that the roof damage was due to a hail storm in 2007. The jury agreed with experts who contended the damage was already present at that time.
Mr. Eggleston noted that “when your client is sued for a claim of $22 million, it is very satisfying to hear a jury agree that they in fact acted honorably and owed nothing.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet
October 30, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & Amtoj S. Randhawa - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGerman manufacturer eQ-3 has found itself under siege by a botnet known as "Hide 'N Seek." This pernicious malware has infected tens of thousands of eQ-3's smart home devices by compromising the device's central control unit. Once a device has been infected, the malware spreads to other Internet of Things ("IoT") devices connected to the same wireless network. IoT devices have become the prime target for botnet attacks. As opposed to computers, laptops, or other larger computing devices, the smaller storage capacity and lower processing power of IoT devices limit the amount and complexity of the security measures that can be installed—making them an easier target for botnets.
What is a Botnet?
For those unfamiliar with the term, a botnet is a network of devices infected with a malware program allowing the infector to control and/or exploit the devices. Once a suitable number of devices are infected, the person or group controlling the botnet can harness the computing power of each infected device to perform activities which were previously constrained by a single device's capabilities (i.e. DDoS attacks, spamming, cryptocurrency mining, etc.).
Hide 'N Seek – History and Capabilities
The Hide 'N Seek botnet first appeared in January 2018 and has since spread rapidly. Its sophisticated design and capabilities have captivated the attention of many security watchdogs and researchers. While many botnets are designed to be "quick and dirty" (i.e. infect a few devices, eke out a little profit, and inevitably be cleared out or rendered ineffective by security updates and fixes), Hide 'N Seek was designed to maintain itself in the host's system indefinitely. When it was first released, Hide 'N Seek primarily targeted certain routers and internet-enabled security cameras; however, it has now began targeting digital video recorders, database servers, and most recently, smart home hubs.
Hide 'N Seek's communication capabilities are also more advanced than previous botnets. Previous botnets relied on existing communications protocols to communicate with other another, but Hide 'N Seek uses a custom-built peer-to-peer system to communicate. This advancement allows Hide 'N Seek to spread more rapidly than previous botnets.
Hide 'N Seek is also capable of extracting a device owner's personal information (i.e. name, address, e-mail, telephone numbers, etc.) whereas previous botnets were not. Most importantly, Hide 'N Seek is consistently updated to increase its infection rate, decrease its detection probability, and bypass any security measures designed to detect and remove it from the system. This modularity has proved to be Hide 'N Seek's greatest strength.
Protecting Against Hide 'N Seek and Other Botnets
While many of the precautions will undoubtedly come from the device manufactures vis-à-vis software programming and updates, homebuilders can still take some precautions to protect their customers.
- When selecting a smart home system to incorporate into a home's construction, be sure to evaluate its security features including, but not limited to its: wireless connectivity, password/passphrase requirements, interconnectedness with other IoT devices, etc. Third-party reviews from tech-oriented outlets will likely have useful information on a device's security measures, vulnerabilities, and any recent security compromises.
- Be vigilant in installing any eQ-3 smart home systems. The extent of the damage caused by Hide 'N Seek botnet remains unknown, as does damage from other potentially-infected technology. Thus, it may be prudent to avoid installing any eQ-3 device until it becomes evident that the threat has been neutralized and all security vulnerabilities have been remedied.
- If a builder uses technology other than eQ-3, precautions must be taken. Ensure that technology providers are thoroughly researched. It is also recommended to include strong contractual indemnity provisions, and require vendors to carry cyber-specific insurance policies.
- Homebuilders should consider purchasing their own stand alone cyber liability policies as a safety net, should potential exposure arise.
Scott Satkin and Amtoj Randhawa 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 Amtoj at amtoj.randhawa@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction
December 02, 2015 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Glenn T. Barger, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinAs anticipated in a prior CGDRB 2015 Bulletin that discussed the Fifth Appellate District Court’s noteworthy opinion in McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist), the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision. The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict of authority presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court’s opinion in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and the Fifth Appellate District Court’s rejection of the Liberty Mutual holding in McMillin Albany.
In Liberty Mutual, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims [violations of SB 800’s building standards] that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB 800.
Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all construction defect claims arising out new residential construction are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act [SB800], including specifically, the requirement that the claimant provide the builder with notice and an opportunity to repair prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the Court, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars.
Our firm will be closely monitoring this case, the outcome of which will significantly impact pre-litigation construction defect claims going forward. We will provide updates as to further activities and the Supreme Court’s decision.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Glenn T. Barger,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.
The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”
In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”
Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
February 01, 2021 —
Sergio F. Oehninger, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a resounding victory for policyholders, an Oklahoma state court granted partial summary judgment for the Cherokee Nation in its COVID-19 business interruption claim. The Cherokee Nation is seeking coverage for losses caused by the pandemic—specifically, the inability to use numerous tribal businesses and services for their intended purpose.
Based on the “all risks” nature of the policy and the fortuitous nature of its loss, the Cherokee Nation sought a partial summary judgment ruling that the policies afford business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related losses. The policy provided coverage for “all risk of direct physical loss or damage,” which the Cherokee Nation contended was triggered when the property was “rendered unusable for its intended purpose.” In support of this view, and consistent with established insurance policy interpretation principles, such as providing meaning to every term and reading the policy as a whole, the Cherokee Nation argued that a distinction must exist between “physical loss” and “physical damage.” This distinction demands an interpretation supporting the “intended purpose” reading of the policy language. Thus, the physical presence of COVID-19 depriving the Cherokee Nation of the use of covered property for its intended purpose triggered a covered loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess
January 09, 2015 —
Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLPIn lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.”
So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.”
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Maurice Pesso,
Greg M. Steinberg and
Christopher J. Orrico
Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case
February 26, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFever. Specifically, Valley fever. Caused by the fungus Coccidioides. It lives in the top two to 12 inches of soil, can become airborne when the soil is exposed, and can cause respiratory illness and even death. And apparently, it is present in many parts of California particularly in the Central Valley and along the coast. Who knew?
In
Granite Construction Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C086704 (2023), contractor Granite Construction was cited by CalOSHA for exposing its employees to Coccidioides at a large solar power plant known as California Flats Solar Project in Monterey California. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in part. It should be noted that this case originally unpublished, it was then published, and then later depublished, so it should not be relied on for precedential value.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims
October 24, 2023 —
Kathryne Baldwin & Jose L. Parra - Wilke FleuryThe nature of business is personal. Changes in personnel, project outlines, or business models cost businesses time and money to bring about, ward against, or stop. Any individual involved in business will likely have seen claims for interference with relationships, either prospective or contractual. But, what do those claims really mean and how viable are they in a capitalist society where free markets are held in such high esteem?
Defendants in lawsuits will typically see these claims pleaded as one of three major categories: intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations or contract, or negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. As the name would suggest, the first two are more concrete and require a showing that the bad actor was aware of the existence of a contract or relationship and took affirmative steps to interfere with that relationship. The latter is more nebulous and looks at business relationships that were likely to occur and are based on a “should have known” standard.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kathryne E. Baldwin, Wilke Fleury and
José L. Parra, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at jparra@wilkefleury.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
