Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense
September 05, 2022 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPLast week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion.
The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?
September 09, 2019 —
Alexander Gorelik - Smith CurrieThe Department of Defense (DoD) has announced a new five-tier standard for cybersecurity certification, which it calls the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or “CMMC”. Taking an unusual approach to informing the industry, the DoD has provided only limited information about the new standard through its website and a “road tour” led by the newly-appointed head of the DoD’s Chief Information Security Office (CISO), Ms. Katie Arrington.
During her recent presentation at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) meeting, on August 8, 2019, Ms. Arrington revealed several new details about the requirements. Outlined below are the most significant facts from that presentation and the DoD’s website:
All companies doing business with DoD (and all tiers of subcontractors) will need to obtain CMMC certifications.
DoD will require the new certifications from all contractors (including suppliers and subcontractors) that are performing under a DoD contract. Even contractors that do not process or handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) must obtain CMMCs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexander Gorelik, Smith CurrieMr. Gorelik may be contacted at
agorelik@smithcurrie.com
Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing
February 18, 2019 —
Candace Matson - Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIT’S NOT ENOUGH FOR A CONTRACTOR TO BE LICENSED . . . it must be properly licensed.
We are reminded of this by the recent case of JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, Bernards Bros., Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 945 (2018). In that case, JMS entered into an $8.2M subcontract with Bernards to install an HVAC system in a new facility being built for the District. JMS held a C-20 warm-air heating, ventilating and air-conditioning license. A year into the project, Bernards sought permission from the District to substitute another subcontractor for JMS (as required under Public Contract Code Section 4107 for listed subcontractors on public works of improvement). Among other things, Bernards contended that JMS was not properly licensed to perform that portion of the work which consisted of hydronic plumbing and hydronic boiler work. JMS countered that this work was an integral part of installing an HVAC system, and relied on Business & Profession Code Section 7059, which permits work that is “incidental and supplemental to the performance of the work for which the specialty contractor is licensed,” and a California State Licensing Board regulation which defines “incidental and supplemental” as meaning “essential to accomplish the work in which the contractor is classified.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §831.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Candace Matson, Sheppard MullinMs. Matson may be contacted at
cmatson@sheppardmullin.com
New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines
March 29, 2021 —
Anne Kelley - Newmeyer DillionFrom the rise of ransomware attacks to the recent SolarWinds-based cyber espionage campaign that struck at the very heart of the U.S. Government, it is apparent that cybersecurity is more critical than ever. COVID-19 and the remote workplace has only served to embolden cyber criminals, and cyber risk now permeates nearly every aspect of modern life from health care data to national security.
Cyber insurance plays a critical role in managing cyber risk, and businesses increasingly rely on such coverage to minimize cyber losses. Because of surging cybercrime, it is estimated that the cyber insurance market will increase from $3.15 billion in 2019 to $20 billion by 2025. Having a robust cyber insurance market and ample available coverage is vital to U.S. businesses.
In recognition of this reality, the New York Department of Financial Services recently issued the first guidance by a U.S. regulator on cyber insurance—a Cyber Insurance Risk Framework. A key premise of the Framework is to drive improved cybersecurity and cyber risk management, thereby reducing cyberattacks and ensuring that cyber insurance premiums do not spiral out of control. The Framework recognizes the importance of ensuring a healthy cyber insurance market, and applies to all property/casualty insurers that write cyber insurance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anne Kelley, Newmeyer DillionMs. Kelley may be contacted at
anne.kelley@ndlf.com
Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?
May 16, 2018 —
Christopher M. Horton - Smith CurrieAll general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount.
Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher M. Horton, Smith CurrieMr. Horton may be contacted at
cmhorton@smithcurrie.com
Expert Can be Questioned on a Construction Standard, Even if Not Relied Upon
August 07, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s not uncommon in construction defect litigation for each side retain one or more experts to give their opinion as to whether something was constructed in accordance with the standard of care. This usually results in what we legal practitioners call a “battle of the experts.”
The California Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Code include specific provisions applicable to experts including when they must be disclosed, when and how they can be deposed, and what opinions they can render. When attempting to challenge an expert it is not uncommon for one side to argue that the other side’s expert did not consider a certain fact or certain standard in reaching his or her opinion, therefore, allowing that party to argue at trial that the expert’s opinion is somehow flawed.
However, there are also certain limitations, including a limitation restricting a party from cross-examining an expert on any scientific, technical, or professional test, treatise, journal or similar publication if the witness did not rely on such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion. The next case,
Paige v. Safeway, Inc. (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 1108, involved a case of first impression: Namely, whether an expert who did not rely on a publication in forming his or her opinion can nevertheless be questioned on a publication (in this case an ASTM standard) because the publication is a “reliable authority.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties
June 28, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogAccording to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.
In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It
August 20, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed statutes of limitation on construction claims in various contexts from issues with a disconnect on state projects to questions of continuous breach here at Construction Law Musings. For those that are first time readers, the statute of limitations is the time during which a plaintiff can bring its claim, whether under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), for breach of contract, or for any other legal wrong that was done to him, her or it by another. The range of limitations runs the gamut of times, for instance it is 5 years for breach of a written contract and 6 months for enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. This time period is calculated from the “accrual” of the right of action. “Accrual” is, in general terms, when the plaintiff was originally harmed or should have known it was harmed (depending on the particular cause of action).
A recent case out of the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia examined when a cause of action for a construction related claim under the VCPA accrued and thus whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely. In Hyde Park Free Will Baptist Church v. Skye-Brynn Enterprises Inc., the Court looked at the following basic facts (pay attention to the dates):
The Plaintiff, Hyde Park Baptist Church, hired the Defendant, Skye-Brynn Enterprises, Inc., to perform certain roof repairs that were “completed” in 2015. Shortly after the work was done, in 2015, the Plaintiff informed Defendant that the roof still leaked and that some leaks were worse than before. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted repair at the time. 14 months later in 2017, the church had other contractors examine the roof and opine as to its faulty installation. Also in 2017, the church submitted roof samples to GAF, the roof membrane manufacturer and in February 2018 GAF responded stating that the leaks were not due to manufacturing defects. The church filed its complaint on October 1, 2018 breach of contract, breach of warranty of workmanship and fraud in violation of the VCPA. Defendant responded with a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
