CAPSA Changes Now in Effect
November 14, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsBack in June, I posted about changes coming to the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CAPSA), 73 P.S. Section 501, et. seq. The Act applies to virtually all private construction projects in Pennsylvania. As of last week (Oct. 10), those changes are effective. While there is some argument to the contrary, these changes are NOT retroactive and apply to all projects going forward from that date. To recap, here are some of the important changes you need to be aware of:
- Contractual waivers. Parties cannot waive the applicability of the act through contract. Therefore, any clause in a contract purporting to waive the Payment Act’s applicability is void.
- Suspension of work. Unpaid contractors and subcontractors have always enjoyed a common law right to suspend performance until payment was made. Now, they also have a statutory right to do so. Section 5 of the Payment Act ads a subpart (e) which states that an unpaid contractor or subcontractor can suspend performance without penalty if it is not paid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment
December 07, 2020 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing.
After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?
January 06, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek and Jeffrey Dennis - Newmeyer DillionTo anyone who does business online - beware. While the ADA has been in play for years, it did not necessarily account for all the technological advances that have been made over time. Specifically, when it comes to accommodations - what accommodations can and should be made within a website, and whether accommodations should be made on all websites or just some. However, because of this, a new type of lawsuit has emerged, and is slowly becoming more prominent. Since the Supreme Court refused to clarify this particular area of law, we must turn to the recent Ninth Circuit Ruling in Robles v. Domino's for guidance.
What Happened in Robles v. Domino's?
As part of a spree of litigation, Guillermo Robles had sued Domino's Pizza due to the lack of accessibility for the Domino's smartphone application and website. Mr. Robles is blind, and neither the website nor application, which allowed users to order Domino's food for pickup or delivery, and offer exclusive discounts, were accessible to him. The Domino's website and application were both incompatible with his chosen software, prompting a lawsuit in 2016. After a short success in the trial court due to the lack of guidance given to websites and applications in how to accommodate for the ADA, the Ninth Circuit overruled the trial court, finding that: (1) the ADA applied to Domino's as there was a nexus between the Domino's website and app, and physical restaurants; and (2) the lack of guidance to Domino's did not violate its right to due process.
The ultimate effect of Robles v. Domino's found that businesses cannot necessarily avoid ADA litigation, even though the federal government hasn't given guidelines on how to make a website or mobile application accessible.
What Happened at the Supreme Court?
Back in June, Domino's appealed the Ninth Circuit decision, prompting a flurry of amicus briefs. This was done, in part, because there is a circuit split between the Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits requiring that a website has a physical nexus to a place of public accommodation (i.e. a "brick-and-mortar" location), and the First, Second, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, which will rule that a website is a place of public accommodation if it does something a place of public accommodation would do (i.e. Netflix showing films). In addition, parties aside from Domino's have been looking for further guidance given the lack of comments from the Department of Justice and Congress. This is especially relevant because the Department of Justice has been considering the application of the ADA to the internet from 1996 to 2018, resulting in some inconsistent comments regarding the need for rule making.
This had pushed Domino's and others to attempt to end the ongoing regulation through litigation and furthermore, due to the decision in the Ninth Circuit, to avoid the Domino's holding from creating a "defacto" requirement.
How Do You Prepare?
While there is an off-chance that this kind of civil ADA litigation will resurface to the Supreme Court, these claims tend to settle relatively quickly, and ultimately may prevent courts from providing any solid or concrete guidance on accessibility until either the Department of Justice provides guidelines or Congress amends the ADA to specifically address website accessibility.
However, a determination of what is "accessible" may be put forward due to the new proposed regulations for the CCPA set forth by California's Attorney General. The proposed regulations specifically state that a privacy policy should be accessible to consumers with disabilities, and at a minimum, should provide information on how a consumer with a disability can access the notice in an alternative format. Importantly, this removes the arguments on whether or not the website would have to be a place of public accommodation. It is now widely applicable to every website. Given the CCPA is to be enforced by the Attorney General, this presents a possible situation where the state of California will determine what is accessible through enforcement actions.
In the absence of guidelines however, you have four actions you can take to protect your business.
- Learn the standards. There are unofficial accessibility guidelines such as WCAG 2.0AA that are treated as an industry standard. While this may not completely protect you from claims made by litigants, this will help your business move towards compliance.
- Know and negotiate. When dealing with third party service providers or developers, make sure that accessibility is brought up, discussed, and addressed before moving forward with using that service provider or developer. If the developer or service provider cannot assure that their product is accessible, be prepared to walk away. A business may be found liable for the inaccessibility of an online service provider used by the business to provide the business's services.
- Beta test often. As technology changes or websites are updated to be more device-friendly, new code or functions may make a website less accessible for accessibility devices and software. In addition, just because a website meets the WCAG 2.0AA, this may not account for all accessibility issues, so it would be prudent and beneficial to be thorough.
- Get help. Consider hiring third parties to help you evaluate a plan for accessibility and keep you up-to date for online accessibility issues.
Nonetheless, there is still a significant risk and uncertainty for anyone who does business online, as any business has to be aware of the current general framework of laws and industry accessibility guidelines to hope they meet the murky definition of "accessible."
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firms 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.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion
May 16, 2018 —
John J. Kozak, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsCommercial General Liability (CGL) policies typically include a “your work” exclusion, excluding coverage for “’property damage’ to ‘your work’ arising out of it or any part of it and included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’” These CGL policies define “your work,” in pertinent part, as “work or operations performed by you or on your behalf.” (emphasis added). As the recent case of Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. JWN Construction, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20529 (S.D. Fla. 2018) reminds us, the “your work” exclusion can serve to eliminate coverage for a general contractor, even when property damage is caused by a subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John J. Kozak, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Kozak may be contacted at
john.kozak@csklegal.com
NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional
September 20, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLPAwarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.”
In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership.
In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape
November 04, 2019 —
Peter Reina - Engineering News-RecordNearly 14 months after the Morandi viaduct collapsed in Genoa, Italy, killing 43 people, crews placed the first section of a 1,067-meter-long, 19-span steel and concrete replacement structure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com
READ THE FULL STORY... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff
May 24, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn the next case, Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. 60 Cal.App.5th 1078 (2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a $7 million personal injury verdict against an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturer despite exculpatory testimony from the plaintiff, holding that the testimony was an issue of witness credibility rather than sufficiency of the evidence, and holding that the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction requested by the pipe manufacturer was appropriate because, while the requested jury instruction was a recitation of undisputed facts, the purpose of jury instructions is to recite the law rather than facts, even undisputed ones.
The Morgan Case
Norris Morgan was exposed to asbestos at construction sites where he worked in the 1970s and 80s. After he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2017, Morgan and his wife sued a number of defendants, including J-M Manufacturing for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter
January 23, 2023 —
Sam Friedman & Christopher Meeks - Lewis BrisboisAtlanta, Ga. (January 12, 2023) - Atlanta Appellate Partners Seth M. Friedman and Christopher Meeks obtained a significant appellate win on behalf of a city in North Carolina when the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment.
In the underlying case, Lewis Brisbois’ client was sued for injuries that occurred during the construction of a dog park. The city moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the doctrine of governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion and held that the city waived its governmental immunity through the purchase of a liability insurance policy. Lewis Brisbois was subsequently retained to handle the appeal.
Before the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Lewis Brisbois argued, on behalf of its client, that well-established North Carolina law, along with a particular provision in the city’s insurance policy, rendered the city immune from the plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court agreed, holding that the city was immune from all liability and entitled to summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court's full opinion can be read
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sam Friedman, Lewis Brisbois and
Christopher Meeks, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Friedman may be contacted at Seth.Friedman@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Meeks may be contacted at Christopher.Meeks@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
