Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute
August 10, 2021 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn June 29, 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB-HB 345 into law, which will drastically change Section 537.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Section 537.065 provides an insured who has been denied insurance coverage a statutory mechanism to settle certain tort claims through an agreement akin to a consent judgment. Typically referred to as a “065 Agreement,” the statute allows a plaintiff and insured-tortfeasor to settle a claim for damages and specify which assets are available to satisfy the claim, typically the tortfeasor’s available insurance policy. In the past, such agreements were often accomplished without the insurer’s participation or even its knowledge. Under such agreements, the insured-tortfeasor assigns all rights to the insurance policy to the plaintiff and agrees not to contest the issues of liability or damages. In exchange the plaintiff agrees not to execute any judgment against the insured. The parties conduct what amounts to an uncontested and often “sham” trial resulting in a judgment far in excess of any actual damages or applicable policy limits had the case been contested. In a subsequent proceeding to collect on the judgment, the tortfeasor’s insurer is bound by the determinations of liability and damages made in the underlying action.
This statutory framework presented plenty of opportunities for abuse. In 2017, the statute was amended in order to address some of those issues, including a requirement that the insured provide notice of a settlement demand under Section 065 and providing insurers a limited right to intervene in the tort action before liability and damages have been determined. Ostensibly, the intent of the 2017 amendments was to reduce the number of large and uncontested judgments and allow the insurance carrier an opportunity to continue litigating the injured party’s claim where the insured has no incentive or is contractually prohibited from doing so. Yet, creative plaintiff’s attorneys found several “loopholes” around these changes, most prominently, by moving their disputes from state court to binding arbitration and dispensing with notice to the insurer altogether, or at least until after the arbitration has concluded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
No Coverage for Foundation Collapse
November 08, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiCoverage for the collapse of a foundation was not covered under the contractor's builder's risk policy. Taja Investments LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19855 (4th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017).
Taja Construction LLC was renovating a row house owned by Taja Investments LLC when the east wall of the property collapsed. Taja submitted a claim for repair costs in the amount of $400,000. Peerless denied coverage because the collapse was caused by Taja's failure to support the building's foundation properly while excavating the basement. The policy excluded coverage for defects in construction or workmanship. The claim was also denied under the earth movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Megaproject Savings Opportunities
April 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJoel Levy in Construction Digital interviewed Christopher Dann, a Partner of Booz & Company’s Energy, Chemicals and Utilities practice, regarding how to be more efficient and save money when managing billion dollar construction megaprojects. According to Construction Digital, “Booz & Company, (recently rebranded as Strategy&), is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, and over a century of working with huge clients in several sectors, has gathered the knowledge to identify what it terms a $40 trillion opportunity for savings in construction megaprojects over the next 20 years as clients combat a 30 percent average figure of overrun in schedule and cost.”
Dann cited several reasons for inefficiencies in megaprojects, including “inefficient advance planning and analysis” and “lack of completion of detail design engineering prior to the start of construction,” reported Construction Digital. The inefficiencies can be countered, according to Dann, “when following a clear strategy.”
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
Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says
June 10, 2019 —
Mark Chediak & Edvard Pettersson - BloombergThe worst natural gas leak in U.S. history, which broke out at a Sempra Energy storage field near Los Angeles almost four years ago, was caused by corrosion, according to a report commissioned by California regulators.
The rupture of a 7-inch (18-centimeter) well casing at Sempra Energy’s Aliso Canyon storage complex was due to “microbial corrosion” brought on by contact with groundwater, an independent analysis conducted by Blade Energy Partners and commissioned by two state agencies found.
The report also concluded there had been more than 60 leaks in the field dating back to the 1970s, and Sempra didn’t carry out detailed inspections after they occurred, the California Public Utilities Commission and Department of Conservation said in a joint statement. The company’s Southern California Gas lacked “any form of risk assessment” to manage the integrity of its wells and hadn’t established systematic practices to protect against corrosion and monitor well pressure, the agencies said.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg and
Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed
June 08, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases.
In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects.
The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?
December 02, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorI recently had a discussion with an insurer about whether defense costs were included within the policy limits of a client’s coverage or in addition to policy limits. This was an important discussion because if costs of defense were included in the policy limits, my client was going to exceed those policy limits in a hurry. How would this situation play out with your insurance?
Fortunately, the majority of insurance policies, such as Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies, provide that defense costs are “in addition” to the policy limits. But some policies, often times referred to as “burning limits” policies, provide that cost of defense is included in the policy limits. This means that if you have $1,000,000.00 policy limits, your costs of defense will reduce that limit throughout the course of litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims
October 07, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to establish there was no coverage for construction defect claims and for bad faith. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. AAA Constr. LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115935 (W.D. Okla. July 12, 2019).
Jeffrey and Tammy Shaver entered two contracts with AAA Construction for the construction of a garage and of a barn on their property. After construction was completed, the Shavers sued AAA Construction for building the garage over two high-pressure gas pipelines and the utility easements associated with them. They alleged AAA Construction was negligent for constructing over a working utility line. AAA Construction's insurer, Country Mutual Insurance Company (CMIC) denied coverage because the alleged faulty workmanship of AAA Construction did not constitute an "occurrence" under the policy.
CMIC sued AAA Construction for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. CMIC moved for summary judgment.
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
