Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline
June 07, 2021 —
J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer DillionRecently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid?
What happened to Colonial Pipeline?
Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised.
Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense
October 01, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA federal government contractor in Jackson Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 62 Fed.Cl. 84 (Fed.Cl. 2024) sought delay damages against the government. It lost. The reason for the loss is a crucial reminder that documents parties sign ALWAYS matter. ALWAYS!!
In Jackson Construction Co., the contractor’s delay claim was premised on relocating a waterline. The contractor, however, received additional money for relocating the waterline, but no additional time, and this was memorialized in a modification to the contract (i.e., a change order). In executing the modification for the additional work, the contractor did NOT reserve rights for time or money. Indeed, the modification reflected that the monetary adjustment constitutes full compensation for the additional work including delay, namely:
The contract period of performance remains the same. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of the contractor and his subcontractors and suppliers for all costs and markup directly or indirectly, including extended overhead, attributable to the change order, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the change within the time frame stated.
Jackson Construction Co., supra, at 90.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records
October 02, 2023 —
Ashley Meredith Strittmatter & Chelsea N. Hayes - Construction ExecutiveIn a revival of an OSHA recordkeeping rule originally implemented under the Obama administration in 2016 and "rolled back" by the Trump administration in 2019, OSHA issued a final rule on July 21, 2023, requiring certain establishments in high-hazard industries to submit additional injury and illness data electronically to OSHA. The
Final Rule is found at 29 CFR 1904 and goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
What does this mean? On and after Jan. 1, 2024, OSHA will require employers with 100 or more workers in certain high-hazard industries to provide annual information from their
Forms 300 and 301, in addition to the already-required electronic submission of Form 300A. Form 300 is the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, including the specific injuries or illnesses and the employee names, while Form 301 is the corresponding Injury and Illness Incident Report, which includes additional details on each item listed on the 300 Log. Form300A is the corresponding Annual Summary showing the injury and illness totals for the year, including the number of cases, number of lost workdays, the injury and illness types, the average number of employees and the total hours employees worked. This Form 300A Annual Summary must be routinely submitted by employers with more than 250 employees on or before March 2 of each year for the prior year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Meredith Strittmatter and Chelsea N. Hayes, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Strittmatter may be contacted at astrittmatter@bakerdonelson.com
Ms. Hayes may be contacted at cnhayes@bakerdonelson.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract
December 04, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent appellate opinion starts off, “This is a typical South Florida construction dispute.” (See case citation at the bottom) Let’s see, is it? No. It’s a garden variety payment dispute where the parties did NOT have a binding contract. Why? That’s for a different day (because the smart practice is ALWAYS to have a contract!) but it touches on the equitable, unjust enrichment claim. And it touches on competing unjust enrichment claims and the apportionment of those claims. In other words, can both parties be right on their unjust enrichment claims?
An owner hired a general contractor for home renovations. Work started but the relationship soured and the general contractor did not complete the work. The general contractor filed a payment dispute against the owner based on unpaid invoices. It pled alternative theories of recovery against the owner: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The owner filed a counterclaim against the general contractor for the same claims. During the non-jury trial, the general contractor presented unpaid invoices along with testimony that the invoices represented the value of services rendered. The owner presented evidence of the completion of work damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules
May 24, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn January, the California Court of Appeals ruled that an arbitration clause inserted in a development’s CC&Rs by the developer could not be enforced. The case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Noble Court Development, involved a case in which, according to the opinion, “following the first sale Nobel controlled the board of directors of the Association and because the initial condominium buyers noticed defects in common areas and common facilities and did not believe Nobel had provided a reserve fund sufficient to repair the defects, the condominium owners brought a derivative action on behalf of the Association against Nobel.”
The court concluded, “The use of CC&R's as a means of providing contractual rights to parties with no interest in or responsibility for a common interest development is also problematic from the standpoint of determining what if any consideration would support such third-party agreements. By their terms the CC&R's bind all successors, even those with whom a third party such as Nobel has never had any contractual relationship and to whom Nobel has not provided any consideration.” The court determined that “the trial court did not err in denying Nobel's motion to compel arbitration.”
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know
December 09, 2019 —
Brenda Radmacher & Nicholas Krebs - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogDo you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance.
Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and
Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com
Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act
April 30, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMarisa L. Saber on the Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog, discussed Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act, and how it can benefit both builders and plaintiffs in construction defect cases. Saber stated that the “Indiana New Home Construction Warranty Act (the “Act”) (see Indiana Code §32-27-2-1 et. seq.) allows a builder to provide specific warranties and disclaim all implied warranties if the text of the statute is followed.” Furthermore, the warranties must be backed by an insurance policy.
Saber answers the question as to why a builder would choose to provide express warranties: “The likely answer is that it allows the builder to have control over its liability if a construction defect occurs.” For instance, “[i]f a builder provides express warranties via the Act, it is assured that any warranty liability will be covered by insurance.” This benefits a plaintiff working in a subrogation case, “as there will be guaranteed insurance for the construction defect if the builder complies with the Act.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion
October 09, 2023 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverLiquidated delay damages are common in construction contracts and are generally imposed when a contractor fails to achieve substantial completion within the time required by the contract. While contracts like the AIA A201-2017 have provisions for extending the time to achieve substantial completion when delays are caused by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, delays can result from factors other than improper management or planning and the like, for which the owner is not required to give the contractor additional time. Courts are split on whether there is ever coverage under a CGL policy for contractually agreed upon liquidated delay damages.
Liquidated delay damages are often excluded under the contractual liability exclusion of most CGL policies. The contractual liability exclusion excludes coverage for “liability for which the Insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Courts often find the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy precludes coverage for liquidated delay damages, because such damages are contractual in nature and are triggered by the failure to bring the contract to substantial completion by a fixed deadline, regardless of the cause of the delay. However, some courts will look to the cause of the delay and find that there is coverage under a CGL policy for liquidated delay damages that are the result of property damage caused by an accident or occurrence.
In Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. Eagle Amalgamated Serv., Inc., 01-2478-DV, 2005 WL 2092998, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2005) a general contractor entered a contract for the renovation of the convention center in Memphis. Part of the project included the demolition of a structure attached to the convention center. The demolition work was improperly performed by a subcontractor and resulted in damage to the convention center.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
