Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies
May 07, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFColorado construction defects reform Senate Bill 220 died when “Senate President Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, declined to call a second committee to hear” the bill, according to Ed Sealover writing for the Denver Business Journal. Sen. Carroll declared that the “bill backers” did not incorporate any of the “suggestions she or House Speaker Mark Ferrandino had given them.”
“SB 220 would have required condo-unit owners to submit to alternative-dispute resolution such as arbitration or mediation if the unit developer required it,” Sealover reported. “And it would have required that a majority of members of a homeowners association agree to file a lawsuit, a standard significantly larger than the two-person bar that now must be met.”
Bill Cosponsor Sen. Mark Scheffel, R-Castle Rock, “believes litigation reform” will become “an election issue and” that it “has strong momentum heading into the 2015 session.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company
October 05, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:
Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary
December 31, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsA recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project.
While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers
April 15, 2015 —
Robert Ansehl – White and Williams LLPRegulators and government agencies are sharpening their focus on the issues surrounding cyber risk. The number of pronouncements are too numerous to recite in a single client alert but the overarching message is clear – be prepared or be subject to attack. Attacks not only will come from hackers, customers, consumers and, ultimately the plaintiffs’ bar, but the regulators themselves. Vulnerability lies not only with cyber attacked companies but increasingly with the companies’ officers and directors who fail to adequately safeguard data.
On March 26, 2015, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it would be expanding its information technology examination procedures to focus on cyber risk. This effort was a follow-up to its February 8, 2015 announcement of new cyber assessments (See "Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance," March 24, 2015). Not to be outdone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed a comprehensive and mandatory filing for property casualty insurers that would give regulators a full range of information and data on cyber risk exposures issued by carriers in the insurance market. This proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s proposal, just two months ago, to create the Cyber Threat Intelligent Integration Center (CTIIC), a new federal agency designed to fight cyber attacks, provide collaboration and encourage information sharing between the Federal government and private industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLPMr. Ansehl may be contacted at
ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com
Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim
September 16, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses.
The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues."
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
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
July 11, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEven when claims are within the scope of coverage, insurers often rely on exclusions in an attempt to avoid coverage for wildfire claims. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the interplay between coverage grants and exclusions, and the “anti-concurrent cause” provision.
Insurers may cite exclusions in an attempt to reduce or avoid liability. The insurance industry has long relied on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to draft standard form policy language and secure approval as required by state regulatory agencies. ISO Form HO 00 03 10 00 (Section I—Exclusions, Part B) provides the following form exclusionary language:
We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found
August 10, 2020 —
Shaia Araghi & Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionWorldwide closures as a result of COVID-19 have resulted in an extreme surge in video conferencing use. This spike in use has also resulted in increased concern about the privacy of these video conferencing applications, including a class action lawsuit against one of the applications: Zoom. Because of this, we took a deeper look into the privacy policies of six prominent video conferencing applications and created a chart showing each video conferencing application's compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Reviewing these materials will provide an awareness of the deficiencies within the Privacy Policies, which can help you become more well-informed about your own rights, and more knowledgeable about any deficiencies in your own business' privacy policy. If these widely-used and widely-known companies can have deficiencies, it is an important way to re-examine and fix these issues in your own.
To determine this, we reviewed the CCPA's twenty requirements for compliance, including: (1) the existence of a privacy policy, (2) required disclosures of information regarding the existence of rights under the CCPA, (3) instructions on how to exercise rights, and (4) providing contact information.
Here are the top 5 discoveries from our review:
1)
No videoconferencing applications address authorized agents. This makes sense, as the treatment of authorized agents were just laid out in the recently finalized regulations. This is a reminder to businesses to utilize these regulations when setting up compliance measures to ensure there is no risk in missing out on requirements like this, which will still be required and enforced by the Attorney General.
2)
Three platforms (WebEx, Skype, and Teams) have separate tabs and pages detailing privacy policies, and don't necessarily have a single unified and simple policy. Because of the accessibility requirements, this means that the privacy policy may not be readily accessible on the business's website, and may open companies to arguments that the entirety of their policy is non-compliant if key portions are hidden or otherwise inaccessible. Therefore to eliminate this concern, keep your policy unified, simple and in one location for ease of viewing.
3)
None of the platforms address information relating to minors under the age of 16, which is notable as some of these platforms have been used for online education. The final regulations outline different treatment for minors from ages 13 to 16, and for minors under the age of 13. As a result, privacy policies focused on compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) may be insufficient as it only applies to those under 13 years old.
4)
While all of the platforms state that no sale of information occurs, two platforms (Zoom and GoToMeeting) go above and beyond to explain the right to opt-out of sales. This is especially great as the CCPA permits that no notice needs to be given if no sale occurs. By taking this extra step, Zoom and GoToMeeting explain to their users that they have additional rights, which may be necessary as these platforms are also used by other entities, which may collect or otherwise use information collected from a videoconference meeting.
5)
Only one platform (Wire) does not give instructions on how to delete information. The CCPA regulations still require that information regarding instructions on how to delete information be given. The lack of instructions does not relieve Wire from its obligations, and similarly situated businesses may find themselves in a position where they will have to comply with a consumer request, in any form, as the regulations require that a business either comply, or list the proper instructions on how to make the request.
Download the Full Breakdown
To learn more about our findings and how the video conferencing companies stacked up against the CCPA, visit: https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/ccpa-privacy-policy-compliance-videoconferencing-platforms/. We hope this serves as a reminder to everyone to read the privacy platforms for the services you use and update your company's privacy policies to comply with the most recent regulations, as none of these services are currently in complete compliance, and it is only a matter of time before enforcement begins.
Shaia Araghi is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber-related matters, including compliance and prevention that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Shaia can help, contact her at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com.
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.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage
May 18, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court (No. S244737, filed 4/6/20) (Montrose III), the California Supreme Court held that, as between excess insurers at differing levels of coverage, a rule of “vertical exhaustion” or “elective stacking” applies, whereby the insured may access any excess policy once it has exhausted other excess policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The Court limited the rule to excess insurance, stating that “[b]ecause the question is not presented here, we do not decide when or whether an insured may access excess policies before all primary insurance covering all relevant policy periods has been exhausted.”
Montrose manufactured the insecticide DDT in Torrance from 1947 to 1982. In 1990, the state and federal governments sued Montrose for environmental contamination and Montrose entered into partial consent decrees agreeing to pay for cleanup. Montrose claimed to have expended in excess of $100 million doing so, and asserted that its future liability could exceed that amount.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
