Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco
October 07, 2019 —
Haight Brown & BonesteelHaight Brown & Bonesteel is happy to announce the addition of new attorneys to our Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco offices.
- Alexandra Angel – Los Angeles: Alexandra is a member of the firm’s Business Solutions, General Liability and Transportation Law Practice Groups. Her practice focuses on a variety of civil litigation matters involving premises liability, personal injury, judgment collection, breach of contract, and landlord-tenant. Her clients have included individual private clients, international property management companies, national and local real estate investment companies, a large car finance company, and local businesses.
- Josh Maltzer – San Francisco: Josh is a partner in the firm’s Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. He is a seasoned civil litigator who focuses his practice on construction defect, general liability and insurance coverage. Josh is an experienced trial attorney who has litigated matters in state and federal courts throughout California and in Arizona, Washington and Wyoming. He has represented business owners, property managers, developers, real estate purchasers and public housing agencies in matters that resulted in millions of dollars in insurance recovers, judgments and settlements for his client.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Alexandra Angel,
Josh A. Maltzer,
Philip E. McDermott,
Patrick F. McIntyre,
Evan M. Reese, and
Amanda F. Riley
Ms. Angel may be contacted at aangel@hbblaw.com
Mr. Maltzer may be contacted at jmaltzer@hbblaw.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@hbblaw.com
Mr. McIntyre may be contacted at pmcintyre@hbblaw.com
Mr. Reese may be contacted at ereese@hbblaw.com
Ms. Riley may be contacted at ariley@hbblaw.com
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
Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers
March 05, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsYou know how I’ve stated on many occasions that the contract is king here in Virginia? You know how that included contractual provisions waiving mechanic’s lien rights for subcontractors and suppliers? You know how I thought that the General Assembly would not do anything to make mechanic’s liens in Virginia easier to prosecute?
Well, it seems, at least for waivers of mechanic’s lien rights by subcontractors and suppliers (more about general contractors later) I was wrong. This General Assembly session, the Senate introduced a bill, that has now passed both houses as of February 25, 2015, that adds language to Virginia Code Section 43-3 that effectively nullifies any contractual waiver of lien rights prior to any work having been performed by any tier of construction company aside from general contractors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project
December 07, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC (“Lennar”) built a twenty-eight-building, 150-unit condominium project containing twenty-four discrete phases over a seven-year span. The condominium association subsequently brought an action against Lennar and others alleging design and construction defects to four main components of the common elements: “decks and columns,” “roofing/flashing,” “exterior walls/flashing/building envelope,” and “irrigation system.” In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims with respect to six of the twenty- eight buildings were barred by Massachusetts’s six-year statute of repose, G. L. c. 206 § 2B.
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously held that all twenty-eight of the condominium’s buildings should be treated as a single improvement for purposes of application of the statute of repose. Subsequently, the court certified the following question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Where the factual record supports the conclusion that a builder or developer was engaged in the continuous construction of a single condominium development comprising multiple buildings or phases, when does the six-year period for an action of tort relating to the construction of the condominium’s common or limited common elements start running?
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSarah Schottenstein purchased a New York condo for $1.65 million, and claimed that “she wound up getting a moldy, mouse-infested mess,” according to DNAinfo New York. Schottenstein alleged that “within a month of moving in she found her apartment was infested with mice, had toxic mold growing beneath her floors, brown water coming from the tap and leaks from the ceiling, according to court documents.”
According to DNAinfo New York, “Microecologies Inc., an environmental health firm, found 'very heavy levels' of the infectious mold Aspergillus Chaetomium under the floor of Schottenstein's apartment.”
However, Larry Pittinsky, an attorney for the condo board, told DNAinfo New York that “the case was "about a woman trying to escape her obligation to pay money.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFAfter reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.
When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.
The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion
February 18, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Baral v. Schnitt (filed 2/5/2015, No. B253620), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not authorize the striking of allegations of protected activity in a cause of action that also contains meritorious allegations of non-protected activity not within the purview of the statute. In so holding, the court attempted to resolve, or at least add its voice to, the growing conflict among appellate districts on the issue.
A SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) seeks to chill or punish the exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. California’s Legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP statute to permit a defendant to file a special motion to strike as to any cause of action that arises out of an act in furtherance of such rights. In Baral, the plaintiff alleged that his business partner had violated fiduciary duties in usurping the plaintiff’s ownership and management interests in their jointly owned company, so that the defendant could benefit from a secret sale of the company. The complaint alleged that the defendant hired a public accounting firm and prevented the plaintiff from participating in its investigation in order to force the plaintiff's cooperation of the sale of the company. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, seeking to strike all references to the accounting firm's audit. The trial court denied the motion, on the ground that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action, not allegations.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Valerie A. Moore,
Lawrence S. Zucker II and
Blythe Golay
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com.
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com.
Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities
October 07, 2024 —
Kyle Sternadori - The HartfordUS casualty has arguably been the hottest topic in the sector over the last year amid growing concerns over deteriorating loss trends. E&S Insurer talks to Kyle Sternadori, head of wholesale excess casualty at Navigators, a brand of The Hartford.
Featured in the July 2024 edition of E&S Insurer.
How are you approaching current E&S excess casualty market dynamics?
We are focusing on loss trends, such as rising loss costs, and staying ahead of those trends. As an excess market there are ways to do that: managing capacity and limits deployment across the portfolio; working internally amongst claims, actuarial, data science to stay ahead of that; and using your own data. Staying ahead of the curve is essentially what we're trying to do.
It started for us probably even before the market hardened. You saw towers of coverage that used to be maybe three markets and nowadays it could be 10 to 15 markets for similar coverage, with each market minimizing its downside.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Sternadori, The Hartford
