Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline
June 07, 2021 —
J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer DillionRecently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid?
What happened to Colonial Pipeline?
Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised.
Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics
April 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the National Association of Builders’ (NAHB) publication Eye on Housing, the NAHB examined “the share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing” statistics as reported in the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).
Wausau, Wisconsin had the highest share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing within a metropolitan area. Interestingly, NAHB found that “[w]ith the exception of Modesto, CA, all of the metropolitan areas in the top ten [were] located in the Midwest.”
The New York-White Plains-Wayne (New York) division had the lowest share of homeowners living in single-detached housing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine
September 29, 2021 —
Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe Washington State Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lake Hills Invs., LLC v. Rushforth Constr. Co. No. 99119-7, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Sept. 2, 2021) marks the first time in over 50 years that it has ruled on the Spearin doctrine. The Court’s opinion clarified the contractor’s burden when asserting a Spearin defense and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of contractor AP Rushforth Construction Company (AP). The decision is a major win for Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC attorneys Scott Sleight, Brett Hill, and Nick Korst, who represented AP throughout its long-running dispute with Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH), including the two-month jury trial and the appeal. Leonard Feldman of Peterson | Wampold | Rosato | Feldman | Luna and Stephanie Messplay of Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins also represented AP on appeal.
At trial, the owner—Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH)—asserted it was entitled to $3 million in liquidated damages and $12.3 million for defects it alleged were caused by AP’s deficient workmanship. AP denied responsibility for the delays and most of the defects and requested payment of $5 million. Regarding LH’s defect claims, AP argued as an affirmative defense that the defects were caused by deficiencies in the plans and specifications provided by LH. This affirmative defense was rooted in the Spearin doctrine, which states that when the contractor follows plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor is not responsible for defects caused by the plans and specifications.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Sheldon may be contacted at
cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com
Business Interruption Claim Upheld
April 01, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiA business interruption claim survived an appeal after it was determined the claim was satisfactorily presented to the trial court. Citadel Broadcasting Corp. v. Axis U.S. Ins. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 274 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015).
When Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29, 2005, the insured owned three radio stations that broadcast in and around New Orleans. All three stations suffered property damage and were off the air for varying periods of time.
The insured's policy with Axis covered both physical damage and business interruption (BI) losses. The policy also insured contingent business interruption income (CBI). Both ordinary BI and CBI losses were covered under a 365 day extended period of indemnity (EPI).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law
December 22, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.”
The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them.
Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogCalifornia Civil Code Section 2782 has been amended numerous times over the last several years. Essentially, Anti-indemnity statutes may not be fully effective for contracts entered into before January 1, 2009. Some developers and general contractors attempted to comply with the new law, and changed the indemnity provisions of their contracts post January 1, 2006. The time bracket, or zone of danger if you will, is between 1/1/06 and 1/1/09—during those three years California Civil Code §2782 was amended several times. After 1/1/09 Type I indemnity is gone in a residential construction context.
The 2005 amendment to Civil Code §2782 rendered residential construction contracts entered into after 1/1/06 containing a Type I indemnity provision in favor of builders unenforceable;
The 2007 amendment added contractors not affiliated with the builder to the list of contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision;
However, the 2008 amendment changed the effective date to 1/1/09, dropped any mention of 2006, and added GCs, other subs, their agents and servants, etc., to the list of possible contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision[.]
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract
March 08, 2021 —
Jeremy P. Brummond - Construction ExecutiveConstruction agreements can be lengthy. They often include terms covering everything from logistics for working on the project site to complicated provisions regarding intellectual property. Many provisions in a construction agreement deal with risk and who is going to pay for damage claims if or when they occur.
However, not all risk-shifting provisions are equally important. While provisions that impose obligations on the contractor to maintain confidentiality, indemnify for personal injury or property damage, or correct defective work can expose a contractor to substantial damage claims and are thus important, contractors can significantly control the amount of damages the owner can claim by including a well-drafted waiver of “consequential damages” provision in the agreement.
Because the waiver of consequential damages can significantly control the amount of damages for which a contractor is assuming risk and greatly limit the owner’s ability to recoup many damages, it is arguably the most important provision in a construction contract. Therefore, it is essential for contractors and owners to carefully consider the waiver of consequential damages before entering into any construction agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy P. Brummond, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Brummond may be contacted at
jbrummond@lewisrice.com
Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California
October 27, 2016 —
Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower.
The Lender-Borrower Relationship
As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
