Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary
June 06, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary.
In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears
December 21, 2020 —
Richard Glucksman & Ravi Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean & RoebWildfires have always been a part of life in the western United States, but, in recent years, the frequency and size of wildfires have become staggering. Oregon, Washington, and—in particular—California face drier conditions, making wildfire season longer and more intense.
In these states, among others, prescribed burns (designed to reduce wildfire ignition sources and spreading potential) have been limited or cancelled altogether as the air pollution emitted by these burns may worsen the impact of COVID-19, a respiratory illness in its essence, as noted recently by
Science magazine. These circumstances, further compounded by the severe shortage of housing, have created a “perfect storm” in California, which has seen new and denser construction deeper within wildfire-prone areas, prompting a number of key legislative proposals that will impact the rebuilding process after the smoke clears.
The infamous 2018 Camp Fire in northern California made international headlines for decimating the town of Paradise. While the cause of the Camp Fire was determined to be faulty electrical transmission equipment, unusually dry conditions allowed the fire to spread to just over 150,000 acres, and the fire took 17 days to contain.
Then, five of the 20 largest wildfires in California history occurred during the 2020 wildfire season, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). The Camp Fire was eclipsed by the August 2020 Complex Fire, which is the largest wildfire ever recorded in the state, growing to just over one million acres in size until it was finally contained on Nov. 15.
Legislative Response
The Camp Fire and other 2018 wildfires displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes throughout California. The unprecedented scale of both the 2018 and the 2020 wildfire seasons in California has spurred legislators in Sacramento to draft a number of important bills that will undoubtedly impact rebuilding efforts.
California AB 38 was prompted by the 2018 California wildfire season and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2019. It requires the state fire marshal, the Office of Emergency Services, and Cal Fire to work together to develop and administer a comprehensive wildfire mitigation program, including "cost-effective structure hardening and retrofitting to create fire-resistant homes, businesses, and public buildings."
Unfortunately, the well-intentioned program has yet to be funded, and may be relying on federal hazard funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a future date. In light of the crippling economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal funding is likely the only viable source for this important item of legislation.
California SB 182 would enact new building regulations in high fire-risk areas (as determined by the state fire marshal), including new standards for fire-resistive construction, evacuation routes, defensible space, and available water and firefighting resources. It would also prohibit municipalities from approving new construction in high fire-risk areas unless wildfire reduction standards are satisfied. In effect, the bill would discourage new construction in high fire-risk areas.
After passing through both legislative houses, Newsom vetoed the bill, citing its negative impact on the state's strained supply of affordable housing. However, the bill is likely to be revisited in the 2020-2021 legislative session.
California AB 1516 is a comprehensive bill that would:
- Create new defensible-space requirements for both new and existing construction in high fire-risk areas.
- Create a grant-assistance program for fire-prevention education, inspections, and technical assistance.
- Direct Cal Fire to develop vegetation management recommendations to minimize flammability.
Additionally, the bill would allow insurers providing course of construction coverage for a project to request, from the owner, municipal certification that the structure to be built complies with existing and new building standards. Newsom vetoed this bill, cautioning that a "one size fits all" approach to wildfire management may not be appropriate, given that each individual community's needs differ.
California AB 2380 focuses on the development of standards and regulations for a relatively new and growing phenomenon: the rising use of private firefighting personnel, particularly by wealthy homeowners. Several prominent and well-known carriers offer homeowners-insurance policies that provide for private firefighting personnel, as well as preventative services (wildfire hazard inspections and clearing defensible space), and expected post-incident services (clean up and removal of fire retardant and similar substances).
AB 2380 was signed into law by Newsom at the tail end of the 2018 wildfire season, and it now requires Cal Fire, the governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the board of directors of the FIRESCOPE Program (designed to coordinate firefighting resources among different agencies) to develop standards and regulations for privately contracted fire fighters.
Housing Shortage and New Construction
These legislative efforts are underscored by the worsening housing crisis, which has both strained existing supply and increasingly pushed new construction into areas known as the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
WUI areas are designated as either "interface" or "intermix:” Interface WUI areas have little to no wildland vegetation, but are near large wildlands. By contrast, in intermix WUI areas, structures are mixed with wildland vegetation.
A recent study by the U.S. Forest Service found that, as expected, WUI areas are the hardest hit by wildfires. However, the study also found that, contrary to popular belief, wildfires cause greater damage in interface WUI areas than intermix WUI areas- in other words, wildfire damage is greatest where there is little to no wildland vegetation. The study concludes that wildfires in WUI areas are fueled more by human-made fuels as opposed to natural vegetation. These human-made fuels include building materials and landscaping.
It may not come as a surprise that a growing body of scientific literature has ascribed more severe and frequent wildfires to climate change. However, what may be less appreciated is the profound impact of building in the WUI. By 2050, an estimated one million new homes are projected to be built in California WUI areas.
In light of this, as well as the recognition that wildfire risk is determined, in large part, by construction standards and the fire resistivity of materials as opposed to natural vegetation, California has developed a special building code for WUI areas: Chapter 7A of the California Building Code- Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure. California is one of the few states to have a unique building code for WUI areas, and, in light of the recent wildfires, California officials are developing stricter WUI building standards.
The constituents of State Sen. Bill Dodd in Napa County and surrounding areas have faced some of the state's most devastating wildfires. Dodd is at the forefront of significant fire-related legislation, and was responsible for the passage of the Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019, which sets regulations for insurance-claim adjusting in emergencies.
Dodd also spearheaded the passage of SB 190, which was enacted in late 2019. The law requires, among other things, the state fire marshal to develop suitable materials and products for building in WUI areas with respect to exterior wall siding and sheathing, exterior windows, doors and skylights, vents, decking, treated lumber and ignition-resistant materials, and roofing materials. The state fire marshal's office found that roofing material is among the most important factors in a structure's fire resistivity, and slate, metal, and tile roofs have the highest fire resistance rating of "A:”
As of July 1, 2021, wood-shake roofs will no longer be allowed by the California Fire Code. The state fire marshal also cites non-combustible siding as an important building element.
Wildfire-Resistant Construction
A recent study prepared by Headwaters Economics and commissioned by the U.S. Forest Service, WR Foundation, and Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety analyzed cost differentials between traditional construction and wildfire-resistive construction as they relate to the four most fire-critical assemblies of a structure: roofs, exterior walls (including windows and doors), decks, and landscaping. Wildfire-resistant roofing, vents, fascia, and gutters were estimated to cost about 27 percent more than traditional components. However, the wildfire-resistant roofing materials feature lower maintenance requirements and longer lifespans.
Wildfire-resistant exterior walls were estimated to cost 25 percent less than traditional components, due in large part to the substitution of true wood siding with fiber cement siding.
Wildfire-resistant decking involves the use of composite boards, foil-faced bitumen tape on support joists, and the creation of non-combustible space beneath decking. This type of construction was estimated to cost approximately 19 percent more than traditional decking construction. Wildfire-resistant landscaping has the most significant cost difference as compared to traditional landscaping construction, with the former costing about double the latter. Landscaping fabric can minimize the growth of weeds and thus reduce fire hazard, as does the use of rocks instead of mulch.
While certain components of fire-resistant construction may have increased costs, the benefits far outweigh these increases: longer life cycles and less maintenance of the components, and, most importantly, greatly increased fire resistivity of the structure itself and thus its life cycle.
As construction in WUI areas is expected to grow substantially in the coming years, so too are fire-resistive construction standards and material requirements. These standards and requirements are part and parcel of a more comprehensive and deliberate set of land use planning, vegetation management, and emergency-response regulations and policies that California will develop by necessity to meet the growing demand for housing in WUI areas, and also to rein in the staggering costs of wildfire suppression. Thus, construction in WUI areas, and, to a lesser degree, in non WUI areas, will be subject to more exacting standards in the years to come.
As the science of wildfire prevention and suppression advances, so too will the technological innovations that will allow for safer, longer-lasting and ecologically sensitive construction. As in many other fields, California is expected to emerge as a leader in wildfire resistant building and material requirements, and will undoubtedly play a key role in shaping fire policy throughout the United States.
Richard Glucksman is a partner, and Ravi Mehta is senior counsel, at Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb. rglucksman@cgdrlaw.com; rmehta@cgdrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?
June 15, 2017 —
Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):
If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer
Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Record-Setting Construction in Fargo
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFPrairie Business reports that Fargo is experiencing the most new construction it has ever seen, totaling $434 million in value, which exceeds the previous high in 2006 of $428 million. Many of the construction starts are for single family homes, although there is also an increase in construction of apartments and townhomes.
The Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead also noted that there was also a large of remodeling projects. Terry Becker, the president of the HBA, said that “remodeling is just huge right now.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill
May 11, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer Dillion"Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation?
WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT?
The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements.
First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
- Track the spread of COVID-19,
- Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
- Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected.
Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
- Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
- Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
- Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
- Describe its data retention policy, and
- Generally describe its data security measures.
Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information.
In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation.
Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis.
WHAT DATA IS COVERED?
Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information."
HOW IS IT ENFORCED?
Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state.
WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO?
If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others.
While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case
February 05, 2024 —
Lewis BrisboisCincinnati, Ohio (January 25, 2024) - In a recent decision by the Oldham County Circuit Court, Lewis Brisbois Partner Andrew Weber and Associate Jason Paskan obtained summary judgment for a paving company client after successfully arguing that their client did not owe the plaintiff a duty at the time leading up to her trip and fall. Although the court concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a parking space wheel stop actually caused her fall, the court noted that whether the wheel stop “constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition necessitating a duty to eliminate them or warn of them is an entirely different matter.” Rebecca Reynolds v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., et al., Oldham Circuit Court Case No. 21-CI-00236, *6 (Dec. 21, 2023).
The plaintiff in Reynolds drove to the hospital with her sister-in-law for medical testing. Id. at * 2. While both had been to the hospital before, due to COVID and construction in the emergency department, they had to take a different entrance into the hospital. Id. In the plaintiff’s attempt to navigate the parking lot, she allegedly tripped over a black wheel stop that was covered by a shadow. Id. The plaintiff sued the hospital as the landowner and the paving company working in the hospital’s parking lot, among others, under the theory that the failure to stripe the wheel stop, closing off spaces with the black wheel stops, or posting warnings about the condition of the parking lot would have prevented her fall. Id. at *2-3.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSix years have passed since the FBI started investigating “allegations of the sweeping scheme to take over valley homeowners associations” in Nevada, according to Jeff German writing for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, however, “the public still doesn’t have the full story of how the scheme unfolded.” Defendants who plead guilty are still awaiting sentencing and no trial has been set for “former construction company boss Leon Benzer, the accused mastermind of the scheme” despite that he and ten others have already been indicted. The trial had been set for March, however, defense lawyers stated “they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of evidence and won’t be prepared for trial until well into 2015.”
Benzer, Nancy Quon (late construction defect attorney), and others allegedly “funneled more than $8 million through secret bank accounts to land the lucrative legal and construction defect contracts from the homeowners associations,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Quon committed suicide in 2012, and therefore was never charged in the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act
March 29, 2017 —
Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2).
In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
