What a Difference a Day Makes: Mississippi’s Discovery Rule
November 16, 2023 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistThe discovery rule applies to latent injuries, such that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows of or should have known of the injury. In Western World Ins. Group v. KC Welding, LLC, No. 2022-CA-00527-SCT, 2023 Miss. LEXIS 278 (KC Welding), a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of Mississippi (Supreme Court) affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Western World Insurance Group (Insurer) filed its lawsuit one day late. Thus, the statute of limitations barred Insurer’s lawsuit.
In KC Welding, on July 12, 2018, KC Welding, LLC (KC Welding) sent an employee to Sunbelt Shavings, LLC (Sunbelt) to repair the door of a box containing wood chips. Sunbelt’s employees discovered that KC Welding employees were welding a storage bin that had not been emptied of wood chips and Sunbelt’s employees asked KC Welding’s employees to leave. After that, Sunbelt’s employees attempted to soak the area with water. Later than night, a fire started on Sunbelt’s property, apparently as the result of smoldering wood shavings, a fire that was extinguished on July 13, 2018.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers
October 30, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013)
The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects.
Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard
January 25, 2021 —
John A. Rine & Sarah Hock - Lewis BrisboisOn New Year’s Eve, Florida’s Supreme Court issued an amendment to essentially apply the federal summary judgment standard to cases in Florida state courts starting on May 1, 2021. See In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20 1490 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020) (per curiam). This change brings Florida in line with the majority of states (38).
Summary judgment is easier to obtain under the federal standard. A moving party need only show that the opposing party lacks the evidence to support its case at trial. Under the soon-to-be obsolete Florida standard, however, moving parties had to entirely “disprove the nonmovant’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact." See id. at 3. The nonmoving party could defeat a summary judgment motion by showing that there was a slight doubt on any material fact. See id. at 4-5.
This change is good news for defendants and their insurers. With summary judgment easier to obtain, weak claims can be defended prior to trial. Claims may be resolved more quickly and economically. The threat of summary judgment also gives defendants powerful leverage in settlement discussions. The shift may also reduce the backlog of cases accumulated during the suspension of jury trials over the past summer.
Reprinted courtesy of
John A. Rine, Lewis Brisbois and
Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Double-Breasted Dilemma
July 18, 2022 —
Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocsWhat Is A Double-Breasted Operation?
A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Rankins may be contacted at
lrankins@watttieder.com
The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing
January 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder Magazine discussed seven myths regarding Generation Y and housing, and stated whether it was fact or fiction. First, they answered whether “Millennials Carry Historically High Student Debt Levels,” (True), and second they concluded it was true that “Millenials Can’t Afford Down Payment at Today’s Standards.” However, Builder was split on whether “Millennials Will Pay a Premium for Green and Tech Features.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe city of Grand Junction, Colorado and their contractor, Aperion Utility Construction, LLC, have both denied any wrongdoing in the construction accident that lead to the destruction of two homes. Aperion was drilling in order to repair traffic signals. Their drill damaged a gas line. In the subsequent explosion, three people were injured and two homes destroyed. Homes for 10 blocks were subsequently evacuated.
The three men who were injured have filed a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the contractor and the city. The city has released a report from their insurers that concluded that the city was not responsible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage
April 15, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment as modified against Lloyds for improperly denying a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1573 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2015).
Lewis sued Lloyds, alleging that, although her home and personal property were seriously damaged by Hurricane Ike, her claim was denied. At trial, Lloyds testified that the damage to Lewis' home had been previously caused by Hurricane Rita and Lloyds had already paid for repair of the roof. Nevertheless, Lewis had not used the payment for roof repairs. Lewis admitted that she used some of the payment after Hurricane Rita to purchase a generator and for evacuation expenses, but the majority of the payment was used for roof repairs.
Lewis' expert engineer testified that the damage to Lewis' home was caused by wind and water intrusion through a hole caused by a tree limb that fell during Hurricane Ike. The expert further opined that the cost to mitigate the damage to the home and bring it up to livable standard was $156,155. Further, the home was a constructive total loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
