Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance
August 28, 2023 —
White and Williams LLPWho's Who Legal (WWL), in association with Thought Leaders: USA - Insurance and Reinsurance 2023, has recognized two White and Williams lawyers as leading practitioners in their field. WWL’s research process uses a combination of proprietary digital and in-person qualitative techniques and interviews.
WWL named Patricia B. Santelle and Randy J. Maniloff as Thought Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance 2023. Thought Leaders base their results on recommendations and feedback from private practitioners in the industry, as well as from corporate counsel or other clients who have worked closely with the nominees. Both Patricia and Randy have also been recommended as Global Leaders in their field.
Patti is recognized by her clients and peers as a leading attorney in the field of complex insurance coverage, having devoted more than 30 years to the representation of insurance company clients. She is also a leader in the legal and business community, having served as the first female chair of a major law firm in Philadelphia. An advocate of community engagement, Patti supports a large number of business, community, law school and pro bono/volunteer initiatives in the region.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages
November 08, 2017 —
Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen, and Kerri Sakaue - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Contractors will soon find themselves on the frontline of wage disputes on projects if laborers working on behalf of their subcontractors or vendors are unpaid. On October 14, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1701, which will allow laborers to seek direct compensation from the general contractors on private projects, if their wages remain unpaid.
The legislative mandate requires direct contractors—defined as contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with an owner—to assume liability for any debt incurred by a subcontractor, at any tier, for a wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the original contract between the general contractor and the owner. The California bill will apply to all private construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018. Previously, all laborers could maintain a mechanic’s lien claim against private property, without needing to serve a 20-day preliminary notice, but there was no statutory obligation on the “direct contractors” to reimburse the laborers their unpaid wages.
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys
Alex Baghdassarian,
Eric M. Gruzen and
Kerri Sakaue
Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com
Mr. Gruzen may be contacted at egruzen@pecklaw.com
Ms. Sakaue may be contacted at ksakaue@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted
July 14, 2016 —
Michael B. McClellan & Jason L. Morris – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law,
creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark
legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business
community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector
across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to
confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches
a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product
or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate
or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of
businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law.
The DTSA will provide, for the first time, a codified federal civil remedy for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Although most states have adopted some version of the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), there remains significant variation between the states in
their application of the UTSA and litigants face significantly different statutory frameworks
depending upon which state holds jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, prior to this
new law, litigants were limited to pursuing their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets
in state courts, unless federal diversity jurisdiction applied to the dispute. The DTSA changes
that dynamic, providing original federal subject matter jurisdiction over trade secret disputes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer & Dillion and
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. McClellan may be contacted at Michael.mcclellan@ndlf.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at Jason.morris@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You
September 14, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, we have discussed mechanic’s lien law in Virginia on multiple occasions. We have discussed everything from the very picky nature of the perfection and enforcement of these liens to the changes that the Virginia General Assembly periodically makes to these requirements and how to defend against such liens.
While the steps taken and content of a Virginia mechanic’s lien will be strictly construed by the Virginia courts, when perfected properly, a mechanic’s lien can and will put you as a construction company seeking payment in a better position than if no lien were recorded. The direct benefit is that you now hold a lien on the property on which you performed work that takes a priority (read will be paid before) any mortgage or other lien on that structure. In other words, if you, the bank, or the owner seeks to sell the property through foreclosure or otherwise, mechanic’s lien holders generally get paid first. While there are exceptions to be explored with an experienced Virginia construction attorney, this is the general rule and the power of a mechanic’s lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Dozens Missing in LA as High Winds Threaten to Spark More Fires
January 14, 2025 —
Laura Curtis & Brian K Sullivan - BloombergHot, dry winds are pummeling Los Angeles and surrounding areas of Southern California, raising wildfire risks through at least Wednesday as the region reels from blazes that have killed at least 24 people and burned neighborhoods to the ground.
Tropical-storm-strength winds were raking the mountains around LA on Tuesday, with gusts reaching 60 miles (97 kilometers) per hour. About 2 million people face extreme fire conditions across a swath of land that includes Oxnard, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley, according to the US Storm Prediction Center. Red-flag fire warnings extend south to San Diego.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Curtis, Bloomberg and
Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict
February 07, 2018 —
David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights In
California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm.
This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled.
Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.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
CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges
August 26, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation.
In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply.
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
