Monthly Archives: February 2015

When Insurance Is Not Renewed, What Constitutes Legal Notice?

12 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Insurance Coverage, Insurance Law, Nonrenewal

≈ Comments Off on When Insurance Is Not Renewed, What Constitutes Legal Notice?

Tags

, , , ,

Mailing is All Needed to Perfect Nonrenewal, by Barry Zalma, Zalma On Insurance Blog

http://zalma.com/blog/mailing-is-all-needed-to-perfect-nonrenewal/

Some cases go on and on with trial decisions reversed, remanded, retried and appealed again. In Collins v. State Farm Ins. Co., ___ So.3d ___, 2015 WL 468970 (La. App. 4 Cir.), 2014-0419 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/4/15) after eight years of litigation over damages resulting from Hurricane Katrina the insured ended up with nothing. His last attempt at recovery was to sue his agent for negligence because he did not inform the plaintiff that his policy had been non-renewed well before Katrina hit New Orleans.

The insured, Edward Collins, brought this suit against his insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (‘State Farm’), and his insurance agent, Reggie Glass. From the trial court’s judgment granting Mr. Glass’ motion for summary judgment. Mr. Collins appeals.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In January 2000, Mr. Collins filed a claim under his homeowner’s policy with State Farm for roof damage to his property located at 7508 Lafourche Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. State Farm adjusted the claim and paid the damages due under the policy. In September 2004, Mr. Collins submitted another claim under his homeowner’s policy. During its investigation of this claim, State Farm discovered that Mr. Collins failed to repair his roof after he was paid for his 2000 claim. State Farm thus decided not to renew Mr. Collins’ homeowner’s policy when it expired on May 30, 2005. . . .

Continue reading →

Want To Remove Your House From Google Map’s Street View? No Problem.

11 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Google Map

≈ Comments Off on Want To Remove Your House From Google Map’s Street View? No Problem.

Tags

, , , , , ,

It’s Surprisingly Simple to Get Your House Off Google Street View. It’s Also Permanent, by Patrick Clark, with assistance from Tom Hall, Bloomberg Business

http://tinyurl.com/kq9qgsp

You may have a good reason for your house to be on Google Map. But if you don’t, you’ll like this. -CCE

Like your privacy? So does Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, as we see here.

Just one question: Why does his house vanish into thin air when you drive past it?

At least, that’s what happens in Google Street View, the Google Maps feature that lets you switch to a panoramic view of a building or block. . . .

Continue reading →

Problems With Automobile Security and Privacy Vulnerabilities.

11 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Cybersecurity, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Product Liability

≈ Comments Off on Problems With Automobile Security and Privacy Vulnerabilities.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Markey Report Reveals Automobile Security and Privacy Vulnerabilities, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/markey-report-reveals-automobile-security-privacy-vulnerabilities/

‘New standards are needed to plug security and privacy gaps in our cars and trucks, according to a report released today by Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). The report, called Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk and first reported on by CBS News’ 60 Minutes, reveals how sixteen major automobile manufacturers responded to questions from Senator Markey in 2014 about how vehicles may be vulnerable to hackers, and how driver information is collected and protected. The responses from the automobile manufacturers show a vehicle fleet that has fully adopted wireless technologies like Bluetooth and even wireless Internet access, but has not addressed the real possibilities of hacker infiltration into vehicle systems. The report also details the widespread collection of driver and vehicle information, without privacy protections for how that information is shared and used. ‘Drivers have come to rely on these new technologies, but unfortunately the automakers haven’t done their part to protect us from cyber-attacks or privacy invasions. Even as we are more connected than ever in our cars and trucks, our technology systems and data security remain largely unprotected,’ said Senator Markey, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. ‘We need to work with the industry and cyber-security experts to establish clear rules of the road to ensure the safety and privacy of 21st-century American drivers.’ Senator Markey posed his questions after studies showed how hackers can get into the controls of some popular vehicles, causing them to suddenly accelerate, turn, kill the brakes, activate the horn, control the headlights, and modify the speedometer and gas gauge readings. Additional concerns came from the rise of navigation and other features that record and send location or driving history information. Senator Markey wanted to know what automobile manufacturers are doing to address these issues and protect drivers.’

Jim Calloway’s New Legal Technology Column – This Will Be A “Must Read!”

11 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Technology, Time Management

≈ Comments Off on Jim Calloway’s New Legal Technology Column – This Will Be A “Must Read!”

Tags

, , , ,

It’s Time To Love Technology, by Jim Calloway, Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog

http://www.lawpracticetipsblog.com/2015/01/ime-to-love-technology.html

Lawyers tend to have a love/hate relationship with technology. Of course, that’s often true for any of us who use today’s technology for our work. But for many lawyers, these feelings are quite pronounced and, without offering any amateur psychological diagnosis, I feel many members of the legal profession evidence a split personality when using technology.

So begins my column, It’s Time To Love Technology, in the January/February issue of Law Practice Magazine. I know that statement is easier for me to say, having an interest in technology rather than the very-typical lawyer aversion to technology. But it is time, past time actually, to be updating to technology-based digital work flows. It is time to embrace the fact that the tools of our trade are mainly technology-based tools. We would certainly judge others who did not know how to use the basic tools of their trade properly. It is time. I appreciate that you are too busy and think you don’t have the time.

But, as I noted in my column:

If you are billing a client for four hours to do something that could be done in 20 minutes, you are not doing right by your law practice or your client.

You Could Be Unintentionally Violating Client Confidentiality In Public.

10 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Confidentiality, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on You Could Be Unintentionally Violating Client Confidentiality In Public.

Tags

, , , , ,

If You Are Reading This Over Public Wi-Fi, You Are Probably Putting Your Clients’ Information At Risk, Lawyerist Insider, Lawyerist.com©

http://tinyurl.com/ltl8fox

Most legal professionals know that conversations about a client’s case should never happen in a public place. Regardless, there are times when we seem to forget. If you have ever eaten in a popular restaurant close to the courthouse, then I will bet you’ve overheard trial and settlement strategy openly discussed within earshot during lunchtime. This post discusses what should be obvious – keep all confidential information about clients private, not public. -CCE

On several occasions, I have overheard lawyers talking very loudly on the phone to their clients. Coffee shops, of course, but courthouse bathroom stalls seem to be an especially popular place to hold attorney-client phone conversations at length and in great detail, quite loudly. While inadvertent disclosure does not void the privilege, talking loudly from a public bathroom stall is only ‘inadvertent disclosure’ in the sense that the lawyer is a dumbass.

Using public wi-fi without taking appropriate security precautions isn’t quite as bad as discussing settlement strategy in the bathroom at opposing counsel’s firm, but it’s not too far from it. A couple of weeks ago I was curious to see how easy it actually is to see what other people connected to a public wi-fi router are doing. I found out it is really easy. In a couple of minutes, I got explicit instructions that let me scan the network for other computers, pick one, and see the websites it was accessing. I didn’t even have to install anything on my MacBook.

It’s so easy that you could do it, too. It’s so easy that plenty of people are doing it, every day, probably on the public wi-fi networks you use.

Before you send or receive client information over a public wi-fi network (by email, for example, unless you know your email connection is secured), read Lisa’s post, ‘Beware Public Wi-Fi When Accessing Client Information.’ Don’t be the lawyer talking loudly in a public bathroom — er, wi-fi network.

Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

10 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Damages, Litigation, Negligence, Product Liability, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Standards for Strict Liability Claims, by Duane Morris LLP & Affiliates®

http://tinyurl.com/q49j9jx

While the Tincher decision clarifies some issues regarding strict liability cases, there are many issues left to be determined by future case law.

On November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. (No. 17 MAP 2013), in which it addresses the proper standard under Pennsylvania law for strict liability claims relating to allegedly defective products. Although the court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, it overruled its prior holding in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), which created roadblocks to the introduction by defendants of the reasonableness of their actions in designing products.

Strict liability for defective products developed from the social policy determination that the cost of injuries resulting from defective products should be borne by the manufacturers of the products rather than by the injured persons.[1] For almost 50 years, strict liability under Pennsylvania law has been governed by Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, which provides that ‘one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability [for the harm caused] . . . .’

The term ‘unreasonably dangerous’ naturally involves a balancing between what is reasonable and what is not, which is similar to the fault-based notions encompassed by negligence claims. However, in Azzarello, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew a bright line between strict liability and negligence causes of action. . . .

Continue reading →

Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

08 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Federal Rules of Discovery, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Native Format, Outlook, Preservation, Requests for Production, Rule 34

≈ Comments Off on Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ol2urvf

In case you have not noticed, Craig Ball is re-posting older articles, as he explains below. Truly folks, when it comes to e-discovery, when Craig Ball speaks, I listen. Maybe you should too. 

I have posted many of his revisited posts. To find them all, visit his blog, Ball In Your Court at https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/. -CCE

This is the thirteenth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations.  As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery [Originally published in Law Technology News, May 2006]

Recently, a West Texas firm received a dozen Microsoft Outlook PST files from a client. Like the dog that caught the car, they weren’t sure what to do next.  Even out on the prairie, they’d heard of online hosting and e-mail analytics, but worried about the cost. They wondered: Did they really need an e-discovery vendor? Couldn’t they just do it themselves?

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ’Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ‘Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

The West Texas lawyers sought a way to access and search the Outlook e-mail and attachments in the PSTs. It had to be quick and easy. It had to protect the integrity of the evidence. And it had to be cheap. They wanted what many lawyers will come to see they need: the tools and techniques to stay in touch with the evidence in smaller cases without working through vendors and experts.

What’s a PST?

Microsoft Outlook is the most popular business e-mail and calendaring client, but don’t confuse Outlook with Outlook Express, a simpler application bundled with Windows. Outlook Express stores messages in plain text, by folder name, in files with the extension .DBX. Outlook stores local message data, attachments, folder structure and other information in an encrypted, often-massive database file with the extension .PST. Because the PST file structure is complex, proprietary and poorly documented, some programs have trouble interpreting PSTs.

What About Outlook?

Couldn’t they just load the files in Outlook and search? Many do just that, but there are compelling reasons why Outlook is the wrong choice for an electronic discovery search and review tool, foremost among them being that it doesn’t protect the integrity of the evidence. Outlook changes PST files. Further, Outlook searches are slow, don’t include attachments (but see my concluding comments below) and can’t be run across multiple mail accounts. . . . .

.

The New and The Best Lawyer Apps for 2015.

07 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by in Android Phones, Apps, Cell Phones, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Management, Marketing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The New and The Best Lawyer Apps for 2015.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Best New Apps for Lawyers from January 2015, by Brian Focht, Civil Litigation Attorney at Styles Byrum & Horne LLP

http://tinyurl.com/mdhprmo

Whether you’re looking to market your firm, increase your practice’s productivity, prepare and present information at trial, or increase your practice management capacity, there’s an app for you! Check out the best new apps for lawyers, for iOS, Android and Windows Phone, from January 2015!

And,

The Best New Apps for Lawyers – January 2015, thecyberadvocate.com

Whether you’re looking for marketing, practice management, or litigation strategy, here are the best new apps for lawyers from January 2015.

You’ve Written The Brief. Now What About The Conclusion?

07 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by in Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on You’ve Written The Brief. Now What About The Conclusion?

Tags

, , , , ,

No more copying and pasting. Draft a strong conclusion. by Rebecca Phalen Blog

http://www.rebeccaphalen.com/draft-strong-conclusion/

You finally finished drafting the argument section of your brief; you are mentally spent. So for the conclusion you copy and paste: ‘For the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks this Court to grant its motion.’ Yes, it feels a little anticlimactic and abrupt, but at least the brief is done. Perhaps you think that judges aren’t paying attention by the end anyway.

But the next time you are tempted to end your brief this way, consider that Bryan Garner, in Legal Writing in Plain English, called this type of conclusion ‘a formulaic cop-out that says nothing.’ Yikes.

Writing a strong conclusion that actually says something can be hard work. But here are some tips to get you started on ending strongly: . . . .

Continue reading →

Duty to Defend In Insurance Case.

05 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Duty to Defend, Insurance Law, Litigation, Motion in Limine, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on Duty to Defend In Insurance Case.

Tags

, , , , ,

Duty to Defend Not Effected by Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment, by Barry Zalma, Zalma on Insurance

http://zalma.com/blog/duty-to-defend-not-effected-by-denial-of-motion-for-summary-judgment/

Defense Can’t Be Avoided by Use Of Limine Motions

The duty to defend owed by an insurer is very broad and requires an insurer to defend even if there is only a potential for coverage on the facts of the case and the policy wording. Usually, an order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that there is no duty to defend will usually be sufficient to reveal the potential for coverage and a requirement for defense – at least under a reservation of rights – to those insured. In McMillin Companies, LLC v. American Safety Indemnity Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2015 WL 270034 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 1/22/15) the right to claim no duty to defend will still exist even after a motion for summary judgment is denied if the motion order is not dispositive of the claims made by the motion for summary judgment. It also criticized the use of a motion in limine (to limit testimony allowed at trial) when it had the effect of a motion for summary judgment without the protections of a motion for summary judgment. . . .

Continue reading →