Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNorth Orange County has a variety of interesting museums from intimate to extravagant to peruse.
Bowers Museum, located in Santa Ana, has several special exhibitions on display around WCC Seminar: Endurance: The Antarctic Legacy Of Sir Ernest Shackleton And Frank Hurley, American Visionary: John F. Kennedy’s Life And Times, Gemstone Carvings: The Masterworks Of Harold Van Pelt, And First Americans: Tribal Art From North America.
Muzeo, a Museum and Cultural Center located in Anaheim, will be showcasing the Trash Artist Challenge Expo & Exhibition from May 12th -27th, and also has on permanent display Anaheim: A Walk through Local History.
Star Wars and Disney fans will want to make their way to the
Hilbert Museum of California Art. In the city of Orange, this museum is located at Chapman University. Two of their many exhibitions include Magical Visions: The Enchanted Worlds Of Eyvind Earle (Disney’s Sleeping Beauty designer) and A New Hope: The Star Wars Art of Robert Bailey.
Learn about American history at the
Richard Nixon Library, located in nearby Yorba Linda.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed
April 04, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court ordered an appraisal when the parties differed on the amount of loss to the dwelling even when the carrier contended the dispute was over the cause of the loss. Khaleel v Amguard Ins. Co., No. 21 C 992, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2022). The order is here.
Plaintiffs home was damaged by wind and hail. A claim was submitted to Amguard for damage to the roof. Amguard found there was hail damage to the soft metal vents on the roof and estimated repair costs to be $3,815.16. Amguard found no damage to the roof itself. Plaintiffs contended there was additional damage to the roof. Plaintiffs demanded an appraisal. Amguard rejected the appraisal demand, claiming that the damage to the roof was due to wear and tear, and therefore constituted an excluded cause under the Policy.
Plaintiff filed suit. After Amguard answered, plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings.
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
Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects
April 15, 2024 —
Gregory A. Eichorn - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.From grand designs to opening day, stadium construction projects present a captivating blend of high-profile opportunities and significant challenges and risks. Navigating this complex landscape is not easy, but when managed properly, the potential rewards, both in terms of reputation and finances, can make it a gamble worth taking. While each stadium project is different, some of the more common risks include:
- Securing adequate labor, materials and equipment based on the size of the project;
- Logistical concerns regarding the concurrent performance of multiple trade scopes on a single site;
- Protection of work in place from weather due to the large footprint of the stadium project;
- Cash flow issues caused by protracted change order processing, conflicting and/or onerous payment requirements from project financing entities, and reimbursement of considerable monthly general condition costs; and
- Meeting the schedule requirements for the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory A. Eichorn, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Eichorn may be contacted at
geichorn@pecklaw.com
Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.
The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.
Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.
Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.
However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act
March 15, 2021 —
Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia tends to be on the forefront in consumer privacy laws within the United States. However, there is a growing momentum for other states to join California in legislating consumer privacy rights, as well as pushes for federal legislation. The latest state to join in and pass consumer privacy legislation is Virginia, with its Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With Virginia joining the fray, several questions arise, such as how closely does the VCDPA follow California's legislation? How, if at all, does it differ from already-existing legislation? What do businesses need to comply with the VCDPA, if at all?
WHAT IS THE VIRGINIA CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT?
The VCDPA largely mimics elements from its Californian cousins, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as modified by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). The main features of the law include: (a) issuing the right to request what information is collected; (b) the right to correct information provided; (c) the right to deletion; (d) providing notice to consumers regarding the collection of their data; and (e) protecting consumer data. Further, the consumer requests, akin to the CCPA, do require verification, and similarly phrased data security practices that rely on how "reasonable" they are, depending on the volume and type of information at issue. Though, the VCDPA does expand on this slightly, requiring "data protection assessments" to determine the security of protected information, how it is shared and used, the benefits in sharing the information and harm resulting from any breaches.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law
December 22, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.”
The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them.
Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures
September 03, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a 20 page opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District repudiated the holding of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”), and held that plaintiffs in construction defect actions must comply with the statutory pre-litigation inspection and repair procedures mandated by SB800 (the “Act”) regardless of whether they plead a cause of action for violation of the Act. The Case, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Carl Van Tassell), (Ct. of Appeal F069370) breathes new life into the Act’s right to repair requirements, and reinforces the Act’s stated purpose of seeking to limit the number of court cases by allowing a builder to resolve construction defect claims by agreeing to repair the homeowners’ residence.
In McMillin, 37 homeowners filed a lawsuit against McMillin, the builder of their homes, alleging eight causes of action, including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleged violations of the Act. The plaintiffs did not follow the Act’s notification procedures and filed their lawsuit without providing McMillin with an opportunity to repair the alleged defects. Plaintiffs and McMillin attempted to negotiate a stay of the lawsuit to complete the Act’s prelitigation procedures. When talks broke down, plaintiffs dismissed the third cause of action and contended they were no longer required to follow the Act’s prelitigation procedures. McMillin filed a motion to stay with the trial court. The trial court denied McMillin’s motion concluding that under Liberty Mutual, “[plaintiffs] were entitled to plead common law causes of action in lieu of a cause of action for violation of the building standards set out in [the Act], and they were not required to submit to the prelitigation process of the Act when their complaint did not allege any cause of action for violation of the Act.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
