If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors
September 07, 2020 —
Makenna Miller & Jeffrey Dennis - Newmeyer DillionEarlier this year, Assemblyman Edwin Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced Assembly Bill 2320. AB 2320, if passed, would require any business that contracts with the state and has access to records containing personal information protected under the state’s Information Practices Act (IPA) to maintain cyber insurance coverage. Information covered under the IPA includes names, social security numbers, physical descriptions, home addresses, home telephone numbers, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. Requiring contractors to maintain cyber insurance will likely both shift the costs of cyberattacks from taxpayers to the private sector, while also encouraging robust cyber security practices among businesses of all sizes. While the bill has not yet passed, businesses will be best served by implementing and improving cybersecurity practices now in order to attain lowest premium rates in the future.
Incentivizing Best Practices
With the adoption of AB 2320, businesses will be incentivized to increase their security posture in order to receive lower premiums from insurers. Simultaneously, insurers will be incentivized to mandate best practices from their insureds in order to mitigate their risk of having to pay out on cyber insurance policies. Thus, cyber insurance will work as a vehicle to increase best practices in businesses and subsequently decrease vulnerabilities to cyberattacks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Makenna Miller, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jeffrey Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Miller may be contacted at makenna.miller@ndlf.com
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act
March 29, 2017 —
David Leta - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn March 25, Utah became the first state to enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (“UCRERA”) which was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (the “Conference”) and adopted by the Conference at its annual meeting in July 2015. The Utah Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act, (the “Utah Act”) mirrors UCRERA and applies to all commercial real property receiverships that are filed in the Utah District Courts on and after May 9, 2017.
The Utah Act provides both substantive and procedural guidance in an area of law that historically has been marked by inconsistency and uncertainty. This new law not only will provide judges, lenders and other receivership constituents with much needed instruction about their respective rights and responsibilities in commercial receivership proceedings, but it also is likely to reduce the cost and increase the predictability of these receiverships in Utah.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Leta, Snell & WilmerMr. Leta may be contacted at
dleta@swlaw.com
New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment
January 21, 2019 —
Timothy Carroll & Anthony Miscioscia - White and WilliamsA recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense.
In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance
April 01, 2015 —
Robert Ansehl – White and Williams LLPThe prefix "cyber" was coined about 70 years ago to describe early stage computers, computer networks and virtual reality. Since then, the term has been used as a prefix for hundreds of words, however, the most recent (and newsworthy) usage is its link to the word “risk” and the correlative term “security.” Two sides of the same coin and not a day goes by when a data breach is not reported and the importance of cyber risk and cybersecurity underscored. Insurers, like other financial institutions, are at the forefront of the “cyber-curve.” Many insurers are particularly vulnerable on at least two fronts: (1) from a cyber risk/ cyber invasion perspective and; (2) an insurer’s insurance policy exposure, intentional and not, to third-parties under cyber policies, and even policies such as CGLs that may inadvertently cover such risks.
A number of federal and state regulators have spoken to this issue in an effort to address cyber risks with varying degrees of specificity. At last count, in addition to a myriad of existing and proposed state laws and regulations, there are at least nine federal Bills under consideration by Congress (covering six federal agencies including one new agency) that seek to impose regulatory requirements upon the cyber-arena. Those Bills empower six regulatory agencies; including one new agency. Initially, some states required companies to notify affected persons of a data breach. As breaches became more serious, state and federal regulators sought to increase the industry’s awareness of the potential exposures and provided instructions on appropriate steps to protect data from cyber invasions. Now, state insurance regulators are examining not only the threat of data theft, but the balance sheet impact of insurance exposures for underwriting such risks for third-parties’ under cyber risk policies. The regulatory efforts continue to multiply in an effort to stem some of these risks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLPMr. Ansehl may be contacted at
ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com
San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA San Diego City Council committee has forwarded a revised plan to increase affordable housing in the city, which reduces the linkage fees increases, reported the U-T San Diego. The first proposal would have increased linkage fees by five times, while this new plan doubles current fees.
The Times of San Diego reported that “[t]he fee had been halved in 1996 as an economic stimulus and was supposed to be reviewed annually, but wasn't.” However, Andrea Tevlin, the city of San Diego’s Independent Budget Analyst, estimated that “costs on developers would have jumped 400 percent to more than 700 percent, depending on the type of project.”
The new proposal also contains exemptions for “developers of manufacturing facilities, warehouses and nonprofit hospitals from paying any fees at all,” according to U-T San Diego. “Developers of research and science-related projects would still have to pay fees, but they would be exempt from the proposed increase.”
However, not everyone is satisfied by the compromise. “While the November 2013 proposal went too far, this new proposal doesn’t go far enough,” Tevlin told U-T San Diego. The vote had been deadlocked, 2-2, but will be forwarded to the main council because Republican Lori Zapf, committee chair, could break the tie.
The new plan “created jointly by the San Diego Housing Commission and a group of business leaders called the Jobs Coalition, would increase the linkage fees’ annual yield from $2.2 million to an estimated $3.7 million and allow construction of 37 affordable housing units per year instead of 22,” U-T San Diego reported.
Read the full story, U-T San Diego...
Read the full story, Times of San Diego... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims
June 26, 2023 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWe have been following the protracted legal battle concerning
Southern States Chemical, Inc. v. Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc. This case had been litigated at the Supreme Court and resulted in legislation. In the latest round, the Supreme Court answered whether Georgia’s statute of repose for construction claims applies to claims arising or brought before the statute was amendment in 2020.
What is a Georgia’s statute of repose? Under the statute, “[n]o action to recover damages: (1) For any deficiency in the survey or plat, planning, design, specifications, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property; (2) For injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency; or (3) For injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the survey or plat, design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of such an improvement more than eight years after substantial completion of such an improvement.”
The case began ten years ago when Southern States suited Tampa Tank and Corrosion Control for alleged defects in renovating a 24-foot tall, 130-foot wide storage tank. The tank renovation was completed in 2002, and in 2011, the tank was found to leak sulfuric acid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine
May 02, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch
And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending.
In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened.
Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract
May 10, 2022 —
Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs GidenCalifornia local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount.
In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor.
As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:
Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and
Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden
Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
