714.701.9180
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT NEWS
City skyline

The Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether the trial court erred in finding that a condo association’s property insurance provider waived its right of subrogation against a tenant of an individual unit owner.

Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist

In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Alba, Rec. No. 190389, 2020 Va. LEXIS 53, the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether the trial court erred in finding that a condominium association’s property insurance provider waived its right of subrogation against a tenant of an individual unit owner. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the insurance policy only named unit owners as additional insureds, not tenants, and thus the subrogation waiver in the insurance policy did not apply to tenants. The court also found that the condominium association’s governing documents provided no protections to the unit owner’s tenant because the tenant was not a party to those documents. This case establishes that, in Virginia, a condominium association’s insurance carrier can subrogate against a unit owner’s tenant where the tenant is not identified as an additional insured on the policy.

The Alba case involved a fire at a condominium building originating in a unit occupied by Naomi Alba (Alba), who leased the condominium under a rental agreement with the unit owner, John Sailsman (Sailsman). The agreement explicitly held Alba responsible for her conduct and the conduct of her guests. An addendum to the lease stated that Sailsman’s property insurance only applied to the “dwelling itself” and that Alba was required to purchase renters insurance to protect her personal property. Along with the rental agreement, Alba received the condominium association’s Rules & Regulations, Declarations and Bylaws.

Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams

Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Read the full story…
Flames on black background

Attorney Tred R. Eyerly analyzes Aqulina v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Syndicate #2003.

Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Although there were concurrent state and federal proceedings regarding the insureds' claims for damage caused by Kilauea Volcano, the federal district court refused to dismiss or stay the federal action. Aqulina v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Syndicate #2003, 2020 U.S. District Ct. LEXIS 101832 (D. Haw. June 10, 2020).

Plaintiffs held homeowner's policies from Lloyd's that were brokered and underwritten by various defendants. Coverage from the May 2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano was denied based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for lava-related damage.

Plaintiffs sued Lloyds and various brokers in federal court, alleging that defendants had engaged in a deceptive scheme to defraud plaintiffs and deprive them of meaningful coverage. Lawsuits were also filed in state court, with plaintiffs arguing their losses were covered by their policies and that defendants wrongfully relied solely on the lava exclusion to deny claims.

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the full story…
Businessman working from home with daughter

Shaia Araghi and Kyle Janecek of Newmeyer Dillion took a deeper look into the privacy policies of six prominent video conferencing applications.

We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Shaia Araghi & Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion

Worldwide 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-videoconf.... 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.



714.701.9180

Preserving Cash and Incentivizing Employees During a Pandemic

August 10, 2020 — Benjamin T. Gibbs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

As COVID-19 reverberates through the real estate and construction industries, impacted companies should revisit their employee compensation programs to preserve cash and drive performance while maintaining legal compliance. This is particularly true for companies normally dependent on high rents in cities, where commercial tenants are trading brick-and-mortar office space for work-from-home arrangements, and freeing up employees—unshackled by any commuting concerns—to relocate in pursuit of lower housing costs.

Mr. Gibbs may be contacted at benjamin.gibbs@pillsburylaw.com

714.701.9180

Fourth Circuit Finds False Claims Seeking Medicaid Reimbursement “Arise Out Of” Medical Incident Triggering E&O Coverage

August 10, 2020 — Philip Brandt - Traub Lieberman

In Affinity Living Grp., LLC v. StarStone Specialty Ins. Co., 959 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether a False Claims Act (“FCA”) suit against an insured for allegedly submitting false Medicaid reimbursement claims fell within an errors and omissions policy’s coverage grant for “damages resulting from a claim arising out of a medical incident.” The insured, an operator of adult care homes, allegedly submitted reimbursement claims for resident services that were never provided in violation of the federal False Claims Act and the North Carolina False Claims Act. A private party brought a qui tam action, and the insured sought insurance coverage for the suit.

Mr. Brandt may be contacted at pbrandt@tlsslaw.com

714.701.9180

Home Construction Starts Jumped in June, Buoying Builders

August 10, 2020 — Prashant Gopal - Bloomberg

U.S. home construction starts rose 17% in June, with builders ramping up production as lockdowns eased.

Residential starts jumped to an annualized rate of 1.19 million, according to a government report released Friday. That matched the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey. The month-over-month increase was the biggest since October 2016, while the rate remains 4% below the level in June 2019.

714.701.9180

Government Contracting & Construction Law

August 10, 2020 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff

The 9th annual Government Contracting and Construction Law seminar will cover many subjects, including Litigating Construction Cases Under COVID-19, Bankruptcy Considerations for the Construction Industry, and Federal Contracting 101 and Retainage Under the Miller/Little Miller Act. This two-day seminar is relevant for Architects, Attorneys, Contractors, Engineers, Government Employees, Insurance Professionals, and Municipal Employees.

October 6th-7th, 2020
Hilton Garden Inn Midtown/Homewood Suites
97 10th Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30309

714.701.9180
Featured Experts For More Visit Us At:
www.constructiondefectjournal.com

Consulting Civil Engineer and General Contracting Expert Witness Arrange No Charge Initial Consultation Concerning Your Matter. area area

Consulting General Contractor and Building Expert Witness Specializing in Construction Remediation and defect claims area areaarea

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Pipeline photo

A report on several recent decisions.

A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel

Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days.

U.S. SUPREME COURT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council
On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation.

FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL

Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected.

Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury

Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Read the full story…
Legislation word on ripped paper

Insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met.

Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & Rees

Despite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met.

The Bill:

On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:

  • The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
  • The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
  • The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
  • The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
  • The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
    • Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
    • Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.

Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri and Katelyn Werner
Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com
Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com
Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com


Read the full story…
Illustration of judge sitting behind bench

Robert S. Nobel discusses Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. AKI Renovations Group, Inc.

New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Robert S. Nobel - Traub Lieberman

On July 27, 2020, in the case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. AKI Renovations Group, Inc., (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2020), Index No. 159421/2017 (unpublished), the trial court issued an Order granting summary judgment permitting rescission of a CGL policy based upon material misrepresentations in a policy application. The insured submitted an application in which it failed to disclose its demolition operations despite specific questions seeking this information. Mt. Hawley issued a primary and excess policy for the period of December 29, 2016 to December 29, 2017 (collectively, the policy).

Subsequently, the insured sought coverage for a claim in which it was alleged that the insured was acting as a general contractor for demolition of a three-story building when the plaintiff was injured. The insurer advised the defendants that it was rescinding the policy ab initio, and also returned defendants’ premium in its entirety. The insurer asserted that it would not have issued the policy had defendants disclosed their demolition operations, then filed the coverage action seeking a judicial declaration ratifying its rescission of the policy.

Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman

Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com

Read the full story…
714.701.9180
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT NEWS
Gold stars on white background

9 members of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington.

Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Blog

ACS is very honored and pleased to announce nine members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients.

To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers.

John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as the Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State. Mr. Ahlers stated that “It was humbling to receive this distinction, particularly considering the many talented Super Lawyers in the State and I am a ‘construction lawyer’ to boot! I am grateful for the confidence my many colleagues in the bar have in me, by honoring me with their vote”.

Founding partner Paul R. Cressman Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State.

Four other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen, Lawrence S. Glosser and Ryan W. Sternoff.

Two other firm members, partner Lindsay (Taft) Watkins and associate Scott D. MacDonald are also recognized as Super Lawyer Rising Stars, which recognizes attorneys either 40 years old or younger, or in practice 10 years or less.

Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight

Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Read the full story…
Construction workers injured on site

The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception.

Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & Bonesteel

In Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance.

Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.”

Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski and Austin F. Smith
Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com


Read the full story…
Businessman with arms up in triumph

In receiving this recognition, Mr. Alexander joins the less than 2% of active Florida Bar members who appear on this exclusive list.

Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Vincent Alexander - Lewis Brisbois

Fort Lauderdale Partner Vincent F. Alexander has been named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite as both a Legal Leader and an Up & Comer. In receiving this recognition, Mr. Alexander joins the less than 2% of active Florida Bar members who appear on this exclusive list. In addition, as a Legal Elite Up & Comer, Mr. Alexander is among only 112 attorneys who received the most votes in a special category for attorneys under the age of 40 who have exhibited leadership in the law and in their community.

Florida Trend’s Legal Elite, now in its 17th year, presents the state’s top licensed and practicing attorneys selected by their peers. In composing its 2020 edition of Legal Elite, Florida Trend invited all in-state Florida Bar members to name attorneys who they hold in high regard or who they would recommend to others. The publication also asked voters to name three up and coming attorneys. Nominated attorneys were then scored based on the number of votes that they received, with more weight assigned to votes from outside of their own firms.

Reprinted courtesy of Vincent Alexander, Lewis Brisbois

Mr. Alexander may be contacted at Vincent.Alexander@lewisbrisbois.com

Read the full story…

Worst Built House in America

714.701.9180
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT NEWS
Construction workers building foundation

Any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive.

A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Hal J. Perloff - Construction Executive

We’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive.

While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year.

WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT?

Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years.

Reprinted courtesy of Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.


Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com

Read the full story…


Businesswoman at home computer

Part three of the series addressing how technology is changing the litigation landscape.

Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Douglas M. Weck - White and Williams

The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility.

Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person.

Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com



Read the full story…


Fountain pen on Claim

The positive response from the European insurers appears to have influenced the insurance industry across the continent.

Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Last month we wrote a piece concerning AXA’s agreement to pay COVID-19 related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in France after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under its insurance policies. AXA reportedly has already agreed to pay over 200 COVID-19 related claims.

Another European insurer recently made headlines for similar reasons. Despite initially denying liability, Swiss insurance company, Helvetia Insurance, announced that most of its policyholders in the hospitality industry have accepted settlements following coverage disputes for COVID-19 related business interruption losses. The settlements reportedly included policyholders from Switzerland, Austria, and Germany.

The positive response from the European insurers appears to have influenced the insurance industry across the continent. For instance, in the U.K., the Financial Conduct Authority announced that it is taking certain insurers to court to seek clarity as to coverage for COVID-19 related losses. In Germany, the government and a group of insurers reached an agreement whereby the government will pay for 70% of business interruption losses for policyholders in the hospitality industry, and the insurers will pay for half of the business interruption losses not covered by the government.

Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com



Read the full story…


Businesswoman rubbing temples

Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider utilizing health protocols.

Employee Screening and Testing in the Covid-19 Era: Getting Back to Work

Monday, August 10, 2020 — Aaron C. Schlesinger & Shannon D. Azzaro - Peckar & Abramson

Currently Available Workplace Protocols for Employers

Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider from among the three currently available protocols: Written Questionnaires; Temperature Checks; and Viral or Diagnostic Testing.

When implementing a screening or testing protocol, employers should explain the following in writing to employees: (1) the specific screening process or test utilized by the employer; (2) employee compliance expectations and any consequences for a refusal to participate; (3) how employee privacy will be protected; (4) if screening, the general benchmarks that indicate the employee has “passed” (e.g., temperature below 100.4ºF, per CDC guidelines); and (5) the outcome of an unsuccessful screen or test (e.g., being sent home from the workplace). Employers must also ensure that those administering the screening and/or testing are properly trained, and that appropriate written acknowledgements are obtained from employees consenting to the applicable protocol.

Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Azzaro may be contacted at sazzaro@pecklaw.com



Read the full story…


Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

Builders Standard of Care Expert Witness and Consulting General Contractor area area area

714.701.9180
714.701.9180
714.701.9180
Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.
No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions CONSTRUCTION NEWS constructiondefecteminars.html constructionDefectChannel.html contactCDJ.html