Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court
June 21, 2021 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.”
5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court
March 12, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).
The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes.
A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)
August 07, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe Biden administration will use infrastructure funds to upgrade 85 airports across the U.S., The Affordable New York tax provision expires, homebuyers in China refuse to pay mortgages, and more.
- Hines, a Houston-based real estate giant, set a target of its 1,530 properties in 28 countries being net-zero operational carbon by 2040. (John Egan, Innovation Map)
- The Biden administration announced it will spend roughly $1 billion from the infrastructure package to upgrade 85 airports across the country, including terminals and other facilities. (Jeff Mordock, The Washington Post)
- The Affordable New York tax provision, which offered a property tax exemption for housing projects that include a percentage earmarked for lower-income renters, expired in June, creating an unsettled future for the city’s multifamily development. (Rebecca Picciotto, The Wall Street Journal)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiWhile some of their claims were dismissed, plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Senft v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61870 (D. N.J. May 12, 2015).
Plaintiffs' waterfront home was insured by Fireman's Fund. Plaintiffs alleged that the broker represented that the policy would provide (1) coverage in the event of a hurricane,(2) the "highest level of protection" offered by Fireman's Fund, and (3) "exceptional" services in the event of a catastrophe. The policy included a 2% hurricane deductible because of the home's proximity to the ocean.
Hurricane Sandy badly damaged plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs alleged that the winds from Sandy battered their home long before the storm surge reached the structure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Latest Updates On The Coronavirus Pandemic
March 30, 2020 —
ENR Editors - Engineering News-RecordCoronavirus has struck a heavy blow against the world economy as it forces countries into lockdown with "closed for business" signs, hollows out the tourism, travel and hospitality sectors, turns out the lights on business gatherings and events, sends employees home to work and drives the stock market into a dizzying tumble.
ENR Editors
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story for ENR's ongoing reporting, analysis and commentary on construction sector developments
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!
February 14, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on their successful Motion for Summary Judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court!
BWB&O’s client was a concrete contractor hired by a government entity for a limited sidewalk repair project many years ago. The Plaintiff, who was confined to a wheelchair, filed suit against BWB&O’s client alleging Negligence and Premises Liability after an alleged fall injury on a public sidewalk. Plaintiff’s primary alleged theory of liability against BWB&O’s client was that it either worked on or was supposed to work on that subject sidewalk and in doing so, or failure to do so, caused Plaintiff’s fall and subsequent alleged injuries/damages. Plaintiff claimed in excess of $1 million in damages.
After extensive discovery, Mr. Au and Ms. Vahdat gathered enough evidence to prove that BWB&O’s client neither worked on the subject area nor was required to do so. Accordingly, they prepared a successful Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that no duty was owed to Plaintiff thereby refuting the negligence cause of action. The dispositive motion also proved that the subject sidewalk was not owned, controlled, or maintained by BWB&O’s client thereby negating the premises liability cause of action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion
September 28, 2017 —
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!
Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
