Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. (No. B245961, filed 5/16/14, ord. pub. 6/13/14), a California appeals court held that the insured's use of the wrong steel seismic reinforcement hooks in construction of a mixed-use building was not an occurrence, and did not result in covered property damage.
Regional Steel was the structural steel subcontractor on a 14-story mixed-use project in North Hollywood, California. Regional supplied plans which were approved by the developer and its structural engineers for installation of steel reinforcements, including seismic reinforcement hooks, to be encased in concrete. During construction, City inspectors determined that the plans called for the wrong hooks, necessitating repairs to finished portions of the work and delays in further construction. This ultimately resulted in a lawsuit between the developer, Regional Steel, the concrete subcontractor, the structural engineer and a quality assurance inspector.
The project was insured under a wrap policy issued to the developer, with Regional named as an additional insured. The court rejected an argument that the wrap endorsement fundamentally changed the insurance, and the issue boiled down to whether incorporation of the wrong hooks, the damage caused by tearing out concrete to replace the hooks, or the resulting loss of use, triggered coverage. Liberty asserted that no damage to property was alleged and the purely economic losses caused by the need to reopen the poured concrete to correct the tie hook problem did not constitute "property damage" within the meaning of the policy. Liberty further posited that the tie hook problem did not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy because the alleged damage was not caused by an accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard
December 19, 2018 —
Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson - BloombergElon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles.
A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that a settlement has been reached in the Mosler Lofts construction defect claim. The settlement received by the homeowners was for about $8.5 million, which will used for repairs of the construction defects and for paying their legal costs.
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
No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe New Mexico Supreme Court decided that a lawyer who defrauded clients will not be spending any time in jail, although they did disbar him in February. Bradley R. Sims brought a cashier’s check for $10,000 to repay his former client. Casa Bandera had hired Sims to sue over construction defects at apartment buildings it owned in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The court had found that Sims did not file the lawsuit but that created documents to convince his clients that he had.
Sims initially intended to repay Casa Bandera through monies owed him by Sundland Park, New Mexico. When that did not arrive at the court, Sims borrowed the money. He has yet to comply with a court order to turn over his client lists so that the disciplinary board can determine if he owes money to any other clients.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied
September 12, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion to cap a potential business interruption claim after the insured failed to provide documentation was denied. Lake Charles Instruments Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116802 (W.D. La. July 2, 2022).
Plaintiff operated a business that was damaged during Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and subsequently by Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. Plaintiff had a commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale that provided business income coverage of up to $500,000.
After Hurricane Laura, plaintiff submitted a claim. Plaintiff requested an advance. Scottsdale paid $50,000 on the business interruption (BI) claim while reserving rights to require full compliance with the policy, including submission of appropriate documentation. Scottsdale continued to request documentation, but none was received. Plaintiff also failed to provide documentation for its BI claim after Hurricane Delta. When documentation was finally provided, Scottsdale disputed that the documentation showed a BI claim that exceeded policy limits. Scottsdale determined the BI claim was below the policy limits.
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
Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition
April 01, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPLast week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation
September 05, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn July 17, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 652, adding Section 801.1 to the California Evidence Code. This section provides additional requirements for expert opinions relating to medical causation. In particular, it allows a party not bearing the burden of proof to offer a contrary expert in response to an expert proffered by a party bearing the burden of proof as to medical causation who is required to opine that causation exists to a reasonable medical probability. The contrary expert may only be proffered, however, if he or she is able to opine that an alternative medical causation is one that exists to a reasonable medical probability. Section 801.1, however, does not preclude an expert witness from testifying that a specific matter cannot meet a reasonable degree of probability in the applicable field.
With respect to medical causation, a “reasonable degree of probability” means that the expert is testifying that a particular event or source was more likely than not the cause of a person’s injuries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
