Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFKimberly A. O’Hagan of Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonnetti PC discussed Millennials in Denver, Colorado, and how their desire to buy may cause them to leave the area due to a lack of affordable housing.
O’Hagan describes various possible reasons for the lack of affordable housing: “Some cite the inability to qualify for financing and low demand as the reasons for the decreased number of condominium projects. Others, including Denver’s Mayor Hancock, credit the chill on condominium construction to Colorado’s construction defect laws, which they say have resulted in increased insurance costs that make condominium development economically infeasible.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos
September 23, 2019 —
Daniel King - Construction ExecutiveAlthough asbestos had its heyday in America half a century ago, asbestos exposure remains a major health risk and financial liability for construction professionals. One study estimates that at least 1.3 million construction industry workers are still at risk for occupational asbestos exposure.
Up until the 1980s, U.S. manufacturers mixed asbestos into thousands of construction products. Asbestos is a unique mineral that can be worked into flexible fibers while still retaining its durability and heat resistance. Unfortunately, the fibrous nature of asbestos also makes it highly toxic.
This article provides an overview of what construction professionals need to know about asbestos, including:
- potential long-term health consequences of asbestos exposure for workers and short-term financial consequences for employers;
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration asbestos regulations;
- how to identify and safely remove asbestos-containing materials; and
- what people should do if they have a history of asbestos exposure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel King, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. King may be contacted at
dking@asbestos.com
North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”
February 10, 2012 —
CDCoverage.comIn Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dove, 714 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011), claimant Murphy-Brown hired insured Dove to repair a broken elevator belt in a grain elevator in Murphy-Brown’s feed mill. The elevator was inside a metal duct and, to access the broken belt, Dove had to cut out a section of the duct. After replacing the belt, Dove welded the metal section back to the duct. Immediately after Dove completed the welding, dust inside the duct ignited, causing an explosion in the elevator, resulting in property damage to the elevator and other property. Murphy-Brown sued Dove for negligence seeking damages for the repair and replacement of the elevator, repair and replacement of the other property, increased grain handling costs during the repairs, and loss of use.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
North Carolina Weakened Its Building Codes in 2013
October 09, 2018 —
Ari Natter - BloombergFive years ago, encouraged by home builders and an anti-regulatory zeal, lawmakers in North Carolina joined other states in weakening building code requirements.
It’s a decision they may regret as Hurricane Florence takes aim at the Carolinas.
The Legislature in 2013 increased the amount of time between updates to its building code from three years to six. That means that updates that set new standards for elevating the floors in flood-prone homes aren’t in effect, according to the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes Inc., a non-profit disaster safety organization.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ari Natter, Bloomberg
Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThey call themselves "America's Builder," and in the last three months of 2013, D. R. Horton exceeded the market's predictions of how many of the homes they built would translate into sales. At the end of 2011, they had $27.7 million in earnings. At the end of last year, they saw $66.3 million in earnings. The 2011 earnings work out to 9 cents per share. Analysts were expecting 14 cents per share, but D. R. Horton delivered 20 cents per share.
The stock market responded with a 3.7% increase in the home builder's stock price, upping it by 79 cents to $22.10.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Amid the COVID Challenge
November 29, 2021 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAt longtime client Clark Construction, Dave Beck took charge of risk management just weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic struck.
David Beck made a big career move last year—just how big, he soon learned. In January 2020, Beck became division president for risk management at Clark Construction Group, a major national builder based in Bethesda, Md., with more than 4,000 employees across the U.S. In business since 1906, Clark has grown from a small, local excavator into one of the country’s best-known providers of construction services.
Beck took up his position at Clark shortly before COVID-19 changed life for everyone. We recently reached out to him to learn how his role has evolved since then.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
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
That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies
June 03, 2019 —
Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views.
Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lyndsey Torp, Snell & WilmerMs. Torp may be contacted at
ltorp@swlaw.com
