Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers
July 20, 2020 —
Nancy Conrad & George C. Morrison - White and Williams LLPAs employers plan to return employees to the workplace, they should proceed with careful planning and incorporate best practices and measures to assure a safe, responsible and productive workplace. While there is no "one size fits all" plan, the following checklist will assist in assuring that your work environment includes the key safety components to return to the workplace in the midst of a pandemic.
PREPARING THE WORKPLACE FOR RETURN & GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
- Create a company task force, safety committee or coordinator to oversee implementation of policies that address and enforce practices related to COVID-19.
- Ensure HVAC systems are functional, have been properly cleaned and serviced and tuned to maximize airflow and filtration.
- Review and increase cleaning protocols in coordination with lease terms and cleaning contracts. Ensure regular and thorough office cleanings, with a focus on high-touch surfaces and areas. Document cleaning protocols and schedule.
- Implement social distancing requirements and provide visual markers on floors in compliance with applicable federal, state and local orders.
- Rearrange work spaces, conference rooms and lunchrooms to comply with social distancing requirements.
- Post notices about the number of individuals permitted in elevators, stairwells, rooms and on the premises.
- Restrict movement between departments and floors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nancy Conrad, White and Williams LLP and
George C. Morrison, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Conrad may be contacted at conradn@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute
November 12, 2019 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesIn a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019.
The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial.
Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom
May 19, 2014 —
Brian Louis – BloombergReal estate developers are betting big on U.S. housing for the elderly, preparing for a surge in demand as the population of senior citizens almost doubles in the next 35 years. They may be building too fast.
A jump in supply is forecast to cut growth in senior-housing net operating income to 1.8 percent in 2015 and 1.4 percent in 2016 from 3.3 percent this year, according to Green Street Advisors Inc. The increase may hurt health-care real estate investment trusts and companies including Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (BKD), which is buying competitor Emeritus Corp. (ESC) for about $1.4 billion to become the biggest owner of senior properties, the research firm said.
“Increased supply is always worrisome in any type of commercial real estate,” said Jim Sullivan, a managing director at Newport Beach, California-based Green Street. “In senior housing, new construction has ramped up considerably over the last two years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Louis, BloombergMr. Louis may be contacted at
blouis1@bloomberg.net
Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others
April 20, 2016 —
Sean Mahoney and Laura Schmidt – White and Williams LLPOn April 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that general liability insurance covered claims alleging that an insured was negligent in securing private medical records, even where there was no evidence that any third parties had actually viewed the underlying plaintiffs’ medical records. This “unpublished” decision was issued in Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC less than three weeks after the court heard oral argument. Portal Healthcare accordingly stands for the proposition that “publication” within the meaning of the standard commercial general liability coverage for “personal and advertising injury” only requires that claims against an insured allege that confidential information was made available to the public, without allegations that any third party actually accessed it, to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Mahoney, White & Williams LLP and
Laura Schmidt, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Schmidt may be contacted at schmidtl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt
December 16, 2019 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLPOn October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal.
(1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger.
(2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case).
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and
Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021
November 09, 2020 —
Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog2020 has been an unprecedented year, and, while there are likely more twists and turns to come before December 31, it is essential to look at how the real estate markets have changed this year and which trends are likely to continue into 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted nearly every industry, including commercial real estate, and its impact will continue to influence the market and commercial real estate long after the virus has been eradicated.
Commercial Real Estate Loan Modifications
As the United States’ economy stalled, shut down and slowly started to recover throughout 2020, many businesses were negatively impacted, and most property owners found themselves negotiating with both their lenders and tenants. As tenants were unable to pay rent, property owners were unable to service their debt, which led to a surge of loan modifications this year. This trend certainly will continue through the first half of 2021, as the economy continues to recover.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam Weaver, PillsburyMr. Weaver may be contacted at
adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation
September 20, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsConstruction Mediation WorksAs I left a mediation last week at 8:30 at night, I realized something that I knew all along. Mediation works.
Why does mediation work? For several reasons that I can think of.
The first, and likely most important is that lawyers are expensive. In most construction cases, we charge by the hour and those hours build up, especially close to a trial date. A mediated settlement can avoid this sharp uptick in attorney fees that always occurs in the last month before trial. Therefore the earlier the better.
The second is the flexibility to make a business decision. Commercial contractors and subcontractors are in a business, and they should be making business decisions. While one such decision can be to go to litigation; litigation is not always the best solution from a financial, or stress perspective. Construction professionals, with the assistance of construction attorneys, can come up with a creative way to deal with a problem and solve it.
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
