Affirmed
June 22, 2016 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsToday, in a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint against my client that alleged that a multi-family building was constructed in violation of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) design and accessibility requirements for disabled persons. A copy of the Opinion can be found here (
Opinion of 3rd Circuit . ) An adverse decision would have meant that my client could have been exposed to making several million dollars in alterations to its building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Supplemental ConditionsMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects
November 23, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Illinois Appellate Court determined the general contractor was not covered for construction defects despite allegations of damage to personal property. Wesfield Ins. Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 59 N.E. 2d 877, (Ill. Ct. App. 2016).
The developer constructed a condominium development in Chicago. The installation of the roof was contracted to Total Roofing. Total Roofing agreed to insure and indemnify the developer against liability for Total Roofing's work. Total Roofing obtained a CGL policy with Westfield Insurance Company listing the developer as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet
October 30, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & Amtoj S. Randhawa - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGerman manufacturer eQ-3 has found itself under siege by a botnet known as "Hide 'N Seek." This pernicious malware has infected tens of thousands of eQ-3's smart home devices by compromising the device's central control unit. Once a device has been infected, the malware spreads to other Internet of Things ("IoT") devices connected to the same wireless network. IoT devices have become the prime target for botnet attacks. As opposed to computers, laptops, or other larger computing devices, the smaller storage capacity and lower processing power of IoT devices limit the amount and complexity of the security measures that can be installed—making them an easier target for botnets.
What is a Botnet?
For those unfamiliar with the term, a botnet is a network of devices infected with a malware program allowing the infector to control and/or exploit the devices. Once a suitable number of devices are infected, the person or group controlling the botnet can harness the computing power of each infected device to perform activities which were previously constrained by a single device's capabilities (i.e. DDoS attacks, spamming, cryptocurrency mining, etc.).
Hide 'N Seek – History and Capabilities
The Hide 'N Seek botnet first appeared in January 2018 and has since spread rapidly. Its sophisticated design and capabilities have captivated the attention of many security watchdogs and researchers. While many botnets are designed to be "quick and dirty" (i.e. infect a few devices, eke out a little profit, and inevitably be cleared out or rendered ineffective by security updates and fixes), Hide 'N Seek was designed to maintain itself in the host's system indefinitely. When it was first released, Hide 'N Seek primarily targeted certain routers and internet-enabled security cameras; however, it has now began targeting digital video recorders, database servers, and most recently, smart home hubs.
Hide 'N Seek's communication capabilities are also more advanced than previous botnets. Previous botnets relied on existing communications protocols to communicate with other another, but Hide 'N Seek uses a custom-built peer-to-peer system to communicate. This advancement allows Hide 'N Seek to spread more rapidly than previous botnets.
Hide 'N Seek is also capable of extracting a device owner's personal information (i.e. name, address, e-mail, telephone numbers, etc.) whereas previous botnets were not. Most importantly, Hide 'N Seek is consistently updated to increase its infection rate, decrease its detection probability, and bypass any security measures designed to detect and remove it from the system. This modularity has proved to be Hide 'N Seek's greatest strength.
Protecting Against Hide 'N Seek and Other Botnets
While many of the precautions will undoubtedly come from the device manufactures vis-à-vis software programming and updates, homebuilders can still take some precautions to protect their customers.
- When selecting a smart home system to incorporate into a home's construction, be sure to evaluate its security features including, but not limited to its: wireless connectivity, password/passphrase requirements, interconnectedness with other IoT devices, etc. Third-party reviews from tech-oriented outlets will likely have useful information on a device's security measures, vulnerabilities, and any recent security compromises.
- Be vigilant in installing any eQ-3 smart home systems. The extent of the damage caused by Hide 'N Seek botnet remains unknown, as does damage from other potentially-infected technology. Thus, it may be prudent to avoid installing any eQ-3 device until it becomes evident that the threat has been neutralized and all security vulnerabilities have been remedied.
- If a builder uses technology other than eQ-3, precautions must be taken. Ensure that technology providers are thoroughly researched. It is also recommended to include strong contractual indemnity provisions, and require vendors to carry cyber-specific insurance policies.
- Homebuilders should consider purchasing their own stand alone cyber liability policies as a safety net, should potential exposure arise.
Scott Satkin and Amtoj Randhawa are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Amtoj at amtoj.randhawa@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company
December 16, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container.
In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted.
The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).”
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak
March 06, 2023 —
Kayla S. O'Connor - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Rhode Island case of Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., et. al.1 provides much-needed guidance regarding ambiguity and the term “pollution.”
In Regan, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a pollution exclusion contained in the Plaintiff’s “Commercial Package Policy” was ambiguous as to whether home heating oil that escaped into a customer’s basement constituted a “pollutant” under the policy.
This case stems from a 2015 incident wherein Regan was in the process of removing an older heating system and installing a new heating system in a customer’s home when that customer discovered 170 gallons of home heating oil in his basement. The customer sued Regan, alleging negligence and demanding remediation for the property damage caused by the oil leak.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kayla S. O'Connor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. O'Connor may be contacted at
KOconnor@sdvlaw.com
Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”
August 30, 2017 —
H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck.
KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement
January 13, 2020 —
Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesIn July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract.
The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret.
The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.”
Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech.
The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding.
In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement.
Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit.
The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms.
Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Remodels Replace Construction in Redding
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Record Searchlight reports that while new construction is down in Redding, California, residential and commercial remodel permits are up 17 percent. By August 2010, there had been 63 housing and commercial business starts in Redding, while this year has seen only 15.
One such remodel, that of Parkview Market, will cost about $201,000. Safeway is planning on two $80,000 remodels of its grocery stores in Redding. In all, the 150 building permits for remodels are worth a total of $2.8 million.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
