Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works
January 16, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverRecent decisions by the Seventh Circuit and the Eight Circuit have addressed the scope of protection afforded to architectural works under copyright law. The Seventh Circuit case of Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., 994 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2021), took a somewhat narrow view of the copyright protection afforded to the design of an “affordable, multipurpose, suburban, single-family home.” In Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., 9 F.4th 803 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2888, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1103 (2022) the Eight Circuit held that the publication of floor plans of a house in a real estate listing was not protected from claims of copyright infringement.
Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., involved a plaintiff that the court described as holding registered copyrights in thousands of floor plans for suburban, single-family homes that are basic schematic designs, largely conceptual in nature, and depict layouts for one- and two-story single-family homes that include the typical rooms: a kitchen, a dining area, a great room, a few bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry area, a garage, stairs, assorted closets, etc. The court described the plaintiff as a “copyright troll” and noted that litigation proceeds had become the principal revenue stream for the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued a contractor and related businesses contending hat the defendants had infringed plaintiff’s copyrighted floor plans.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages
May 06, 2024 —
Chris Cazenave - ConsensusDocsLiquidated damage clauses are omnipresent in today’s construction contracts—often considered in early negotiations to provide a degree of certainty and limit financial liability.
There are two principal types of LDs appearing in construction contracts—(i.) damages for delay when a contractor fails to deliver a project by a certain milestone; and (ii.) performance damages when a contractor fails to meet specific performance requirements. Differentiating between LDs for delay and LDs for performance—especially when both LD types are combined in the same contract—is key to risk awareness and allocation during contract negotiations and throughout performance.
This article briefly outlines what you should know about LDs for delay and LDs for failing to meet certain performance requirements. The article also covers how contractors can allocate and cap risks based on risks each party can either manage, insure, or otherwise limit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLPMr. Cazenave may be contacted at
ccazenave@joneswalker.com
Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?
February 19, 2024 —
Sofya Uvaydov & John F. Watkins - Kahana FeldIn 2021, Mark Perez’ Labor Law 240(1) lawsuit made legal news by breaking the record of the highest appellate-sustained pain and suffering award in New York history. While that record was short-lived, it still maintains its place as New York’s highest-ever pain and suffering award for a brain injury. This January 17th, the Appellate Division, First Department revisited the litigation but, this time, in a dispute between Perez and his then-lawyer, Ben Morelli and the Morelli Law Firm. Mr. Perez claims breach of contract over a 10% additional contingency fee charge related to the Perez v. Live Nation appeal and breach of fiduciary duty by his counsel in failing to convey settlement offers during the lifetime of the case. The Morelli firm counters, among other things, that the prior settlement offers – a $30 million offer during the 2019 trial and intermediate sums during the appellate stage – were still lower than the ultimate $55 million settlement. No harm, Mr. Morelli argues, and thus no foul in failing to convey the offers.
But is that so? Did Mark Perez ultimately receive more money in his $55 million settlement than from the $30 million settlement offer mid-trial? Despite the glaring $25 million difference, the surprising calculations show that Perez would have been financially better off taking the $30 million mid-trial settlement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana Feld and
John F. Watkins, Kahana Feld
Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Watkins may be contacted at jwatkins@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions
June 26, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGet ready for more street signage.
The California Supreme Court, in
Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, has held that Government Code section 830.6, which protects public entities from claims alleging dangerous conditions on public property if the design was approved by a public agencies’ legislative body or their designee, does not shield a public entity from claims that the public entity should have warned the public of known dangers.
We wrote about the Tansavatdi case
a while back when it was before the Court of Appeals. The case involves a very sad set of facts. A young boy was killed by a semi-trailer while waiting at a stoplight on his bicycle in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The area where the boy was killed did not have a bicycle lane although stretches of the same road did. The 2nd District Court of Appeal, on appeal from a motion for summary judgment, held that even if the public entity could establish that it was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the trial court should have considered whether the public entity should have been liable for failing to warn of a dangerous condition on public property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
November 15, 2017 —
Jeff Dennis & Ivo Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPThe European Union (“EU”) has enacted a strict, comprehensive framework of security regulations aimed to protect its citizens. These regulations, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), provide a blueprint for a combination of required legal, technological and work habits within an organization. Although this is an EU regulation, the new laws will apply to any organization within or outside the EU that collects or processes data of EU citizens. Therefore, U.S. companies must analyze their data and processes to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary. A quickly-approaching deadline of May 25, 2018 must be met to avoid massive fines.
What is the GDPR?
In order to address the creation of social networking sites, cloud computing, and location-based services, the EU set in motion a process to implement a vigorous set of rules to ensure the right to personal data protection for all European citizens. In April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission adopted a new GDPR, which will take affect on May 25, 2018.
This GDPR will streamline cooperation between the data protection authorities on personal data issues allowing companies to deal with one authority - not each of the 28 EU member states. This will allow for quicker decisions by the data protection authorities and greatly reduce the red tape in both compliance and enforcement under the GDPR. This will also create a level playing field by forcing non-EU companies to comply with the same strict regulations - regardless of whether or not the company is established in the EU.
Territorial scope of the GDPR
The GDPR applies directly to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU - regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU. Additionally, there are specific provisions under the GDPR that apply to non-EU companies if their processing activities relate to (a) the offering of goods or services (irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required) or (b) monitoring the behavior of individuals within the EU. Therefore, all companies must determine whether they process or monitor information of EU citizens. If a company falls within one of these categories, compliance with the GDPR is mandatory.
What happens if a company fails to comply with the GDPR?
Failure to comply with the GDPR could subject a company to crushing administrative fines.
The supervisory authority has the power to impose administrative fines under the GDPR. The following violations and breaches would subject a company to administrative fines:
- Not adhering to the core principles of processing personal data,
- Breach of notification to EU citizens by controllers and processors,
- Wrongful transfer of personal data to non-EU countries,
- Breach of obligations regarding certification,
- Ignoring the mandates asserted by the supervisory authority,
- Breach by those responsible for impact assessment, and
- Wrongful processing of employee data.
The extent of the violation and type of personal data involved will dictate the severity of the administrative fines imposed on a company. For example, under the GDPR, a company could be subject to administrative fines up to 20,000,000 EUR, or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual revenue of the preceding financial year. Obviously, these fines would be financially crippling to any company.
Preparing for May 25, 2018
The May 25, 2018 deadline is fast approaching and preparing for full compliance with the GDPR is paramount. Simple steps should be taken to ensure compliance including to:
(1) Review and analyze data repositories for sensitive data,
(2) Perform an analysis/accounting of procedure for data collection, and
(3) Create an oversite committee dedicated to data activities and compliance.
Most importantly, however, is to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary, and strictly follow the requirements of the GDPR to protect from potentially massive fines.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner and as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues
February 05, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorNew Hampshire is the first court of 2015 to weigh in on construction defect coverage issues. The case, Cogswell Farm Condominium Association v. Tower Group, involved a typical situation. Lemery Building Company was hired to build 24 residential condominium units. After construction, the condominium association sued the builder asserting that the weather barrier, including the water/ice shield, flashing, siding, and vapor barrier, was defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. The condominium association also sued Lemery’s insurer for a determination as to whether the builder’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurer had to provide coverage for the claim.
The trial court ruled against the condominium association, finding that the “your work” exclusion applied. The exclusion in the builder’s CGL policy provided that there was no coverage for property damage to “[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument
October 12, 2020 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & VitaLate last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.”
The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom
July 16, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergKatie Graham is living large. Just in a small apartment.
She moved into the new ParkCentral tower in Nashville, Tennessee, for its gym, rooftop deck with heated pool, and the bars and restaurants in the neighborhood below. She didn’t mind the size of the 562-square-foot (52-square-meter) studio.
“I just wanted to be in a good area and wanted good amenities, so I wasn’t looking for something huge,” said Graham, 25, who relocated from her hometown in Jackson, Tennessee, two hours away. “I’m by myself and don’t need all that. The bigger the area, the more furniture you have to buy.”
Young professionals are paying top-market rents to live in new upscale apartment towers sprouting in Nashville and other downtowns across the country. They’re sacrificing living space for a prime urban location and extras such as cooking classes, dog-wash stations and poolside Wi-Fi. Developers, in the biggest U.S. apartment-construction boom in almost a decade, are shrinking the size of units so they can command luxury rates without narrowing the pool of potential tenants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
