Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected
December 29, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiHaving failed to adequately secure cyber coverage, the insured law firm's lawsuit was properly dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment. Johnson v. Smith Bros. Ins., LLC, 2020 Vt. Unpub. LEXIS 98 (Vt. Sept. 4, 2020).
The law firm attended a CLE seminar presented by the Vermont Attorneys Title Insurance Corporation. Scott Garcia, an employee of Smith Brothers, an insurance agency, gave a presentation on professional liability insurance focusing on cybersecurity issues, including fraudulent scams. After the presentation, one of the law firms members spoke with Garcia and expressed an interest in securing a professional malpractice policy with cyber security coverage. Garcia said he would check the firm's current policy, but was confident he could provide better coverage. It was unclear whether the firm ever provided its current policy.
A couple of weeks later, the firm submitted an online application for professional liability coverage through the Smith Brothers' website. The application neither referenced the conversation with Garcia nor specifically requested cybersecurity coverage. Smith Brothers then sent the policy covering a one-year period. The policy included coverage for up to $10,000 for losses resulting from a network or security breach in the performance of professional services. A year later, the firm renewed the same policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry
June 05, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogOn April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise.
Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them.
Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act
March 15, 2021 —
Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia tends to be on the forefront in consumer privacy laws within the United States. However, there is a growing momentum for other states to join California in legislating consumer privacy rights, as well as pushes for federal legislation. The latest state to join in and pass consumer privacy legislation is Virginia, with its Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With Virginia joining the fray, several questions arise, such as how closely does the VCDPA follow California's legislation? How, if at all, does it differ from already-existing legislation? What do businesses need to comply with the VCDPA, if at all?
WHAT IS THE VIRGINIA CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT?
The VCDPA largely mimics elements from its Californian cousins, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as modified by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). The main features of the law include: (a) issuing the right to request what information is collected; (b) the right to correct information provided; (c) the right to deletion; (d) providing notice to consumers regarding the collection of their data; and (e) protecting consumer data. Further, the consumer requests, akin to the CCPA, do require verification, and similarly phrased data security practices that rely on how "reasonable" they are, depending on the volume and type of information at issue. Though, the VCDPA does expand on this slightly, requiring "data protection assessments" to determine the security of protected information, how it is shared and used, the benefits in sharing the information and harm resulting from any breaches.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed
August 01, 2023 —
Ryan Bennett - The Subrogation StrategistIn Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana as Subrogee of Ramona Smith v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc., et al, No. 22A-CT-1924, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 157, the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Appellate Court) reversed a trial court ruling that granted the motion to dismiss filed by Michaelis Corporation (Michaelis), a restoration company. The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s spoliation and negligence claims against Michaelis, who discarded evidence relating to the cause of the fire at issue.
The plaintiff’s insured owned a home in Indianapolis, Indiana. On Halloween night in 2019, a fire occurred at the property. The plaintiff’s representatives preliminarily determined that the fire may have been caused by a digital dehydrator within the kitchen. Michaelis had a representative present at the site inspection and was allegedly told to preserve the kitchen area. That area was taped off with “caution” tape. Michaelis also placed a tarp over the kitchen to prevent weather damage. Despite the instructions and precautions, Michaelis demolished the kitchen and discarded the dehydrator along with other fire debris.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLPMr. Bennett may be contacted at
bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com
Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders
May 11, 2020 —
Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionFor years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims.
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and
James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing
April 12, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have often discussed the limited circumstances under which a construction contract claim and a fraud claim can coexist. A recent case from the Western District of Virginia federal court demonstrates that care is necessary even in those limited circumstances.
In Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys., the Court examined the question of a fraud statute of limitations under Virginia law. The basic facts found in the Complaint are these:
In 2011, the United States Army awarded BAE Systems Ordinance Systems Inc. a basic ordering agreement under which BAE was responsible for modernization projects at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant. This action stems from a subcontract between Fluor Federal Solutions LLC and BAE, under which Fluor agreed to design and construct a new natural gas boiler at the plant. Fluor has completed work on the project, and BAE has accepted that work. Nonetheless, Fluor claims that BAE has refused or failed to pay for the balance of the project costs. Fluor alleges that BAE received several changes to its prime contract from the Army but did not pass those changes along to Fluor until after BAE solicited a bid from Fluor and entered a contract with Fluor to build a temporary facility. Instead, BAE continued to misrepresent the scope of the project. Fluor alleges that the change in plans increased costs substantially, but that BAE withheld information about those changes so that it could solicit lower bids. Fluor alleges that it requested a copy of BAE’s prime contract on numerous occasions, but BAE failed to provide a copy of it. Instead, Fluor submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It received a copy of BAE’s prime contract on Oct. 3, 2018.
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
A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThomas F. Segella, Ellen H. Greiper, and Matthew S. Lerner, partners at the firm Goldberg Segalia, together with Suzin L. Raso, an associate of the firm, have prepared a wide-ranging survey of cases, in their commentary, “Emerging Trends and Changing Perspectives on Construction Defect Claims.
The authors examine 11 coverage cases, representing decisions from eight states, and 15 cases of litigation, here covering 11 states. In each case, they give a one-sentence summary, a further discussion of the case, and they end with a practice note.
They start with Alabama, noting that the court found that “faulty workmanship is not an occurrence,” looking at the recent case of Owners Insurance Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, LLC. Here they note that under Alabama law, “there was no damage to personal property or property of others; therefore, there was no ‘occurrence.’” They also note that “the policy involved did not contain a ‘subcontractor exception.’”
In Georgia, they noted, the courts concluded that “damage to insured’s completed work is an ‘occurrence.’” Here they cite a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, noting that the court looked at cases from Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, as well as the Fourth and Tenth Circuits.
Under litigation, they look at such aspects of construction defect litigation such as the application of the economic loss doctrine in Kansas and Florida, and how the courts view arbitration agreements in states including New Jersey, Louisiana, and Colorado.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List
July 18, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionWALNUT CREEK, Calif. – JULY 10, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney Alan Packer has been selected to the 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers list. No more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers each year.
Packer is a partner in the firm's expanding Walnut Creek office. He has practiced law in California for over 30 years, mostly representing parties involved in real estate, home building, commercial construction, and insurance matters. He represents business clients, homebuilders, property owners, and others in a broad range of legal matters.
Packer is a frequent speaker at seminars and in-house training sessions for clients on issues relating to risk management, construction litigation, and insurance.
Earlier this year, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys in Newport Beach and Las Vegas were also selected to Super Lawyers lists. Packer brings its total to 19 Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys recognized.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, resulting in a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Alan Packer
Partner
Walnut Creek
Contact
925.988.3200
alan.packer@ndlf.com
Practices
Business Litigation
Construction Litigation
Insurance Law
Real Estate Litigation
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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
