Hilda A. Akopyan

Subscribe to Hilda A. Akopyan's Posts

In a recent August 2020 decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in. (SJC-12856) determined that molestation policy exclusions do not preclude coverage arising out of alleged assault in personal injury claims. The Court found that the term “physical abuse” was ambiguous in a homeowner’s insurance policy and a personal injury claim arising out of a physical altercation was not sufficient to trigger an abuse and molestation policy exclusion for the coverage of a bodily injury claim.

Background

On September 13, 2014 Timothy Krusell, who was 23 years old at the time, was with a friend when he struck up a conversation with Robert Christian Haufler, age 62, and his companion. The conversation became heated and Krusell pushed Haufler, causing him to lose his balance and fall onto a parked automobile before striking the pavement. Krusell fled the scene and Haufler suffered broken bones and other injuries that resulted in permanent damage to his right arm. Haufler filed a civil action against Timothy Krusell and Dorchester Mutual, the homeowners’ insurance carrier of Krusell’s parents (“the Krusells”).  Dorchester Mutual agreed to defend the claim under a reservation of rights, citing to a coverage exclusion in the Krusells’ insurance policy relating to “intentional acts.”

The Krusells requested that Dorchester Mutual participate in settlement negotiations, however, Dorchester Mutual declined to participate in on the grounds that it had insufficient information to determine whether the claim will be denied. The Krusells settled the claim for $750,000, anticipating that Dorchester Mutual would cover $500,000 under their insurance policy. Dorchester Mutual commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a judgment that it had no duty to indemnify the Krusells under the terms of their homeowners’ insurance policy, and the Krusells brought a counterclaim against Dorchester Mutual, arguing that its refusal to participate in settlement discussions constituted a breach of contract, a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of G.L.c. 93A and G.L.c. 176D.…

Continue Reading Can Physical Abuse Be Sufficient to Preclude Insurance Coverage Under an Abuse and Molestation Policy Exclusion?

On September 11, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed modifications to the 2016 New Source Performance Standards, a series of regulations enacted by President Barack Obama that require the oil and gas industry to take strict precautions to reduce and avoid methane leaks due to drilling. While proponents argue that the new standards would save energy companies hundreds of millions of dollars, a vocal opposition slammed the proposed changes in the law as a public health risk and a danger to a much-needed environmental protection.

When the New Source Performance Standards were enacted by the Obama administration, the fundamental goal of the regulatory provision was to end harmful methane leaking. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, methane – which is the main component of natural gas – is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It absorbs the sun’s heat and is more effective at preventing the escape of infrared radiation, potentially making it more harmful for the climate. To combat this, the New Source Performance Standards sought to require energy companies to capture methane that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere during drilling for oil on American and tribal lands. Under current regulations, energy companies are expected to inspect their drilling operations as often as every six months. If methane leaks are found, repairs must take place within 30 days. The New Source Performance Standards were projected to eliminate 175,000 tons of methane emissions, 150,000 tons of volatile organic compounds, and 1,860 tons of hazardous pollutants. Proponents of the New Source Performance Standards applauded the added protections for the environment, hopeful that the regulations would effectively reduce pollution. Opponents of the New Source Performance Standards felt it placed an undue burden on the oil and gas industry given the Environmental Protection Agency’s own estimates that energy companies would pay $530 million between 2019 and 2025.

In response to complaints about the costly effect of the New Source Performance Standards, the Trump administration seeks to modify or remove some of the regulations currently in place. For instance, the proposed changes would extend the timeline for energy companies to inspect their drilling operations from every six months to every year. Another amendment would extend the 30-day rule that required almost immediate repair of methane leaks to 60 days, allowing companies more time to remedy these leaks while still holding them accountable for repairs. The proposed revisions would also seek to diminish the federal government’s role in such regulation by allowing energy companies to follow state rules regarding methane standards rather than federal rules. It is anticipated that these revisions to the current regulations will save energy companies $484 million dollars by the end of 2025, should they be approved.

The proposed changes to the New Source Performance Standards have caused an uproar among Democratic leaders across the nation. The leading Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, called the proposal “wasteful and outrageous.” California and a number of other…
Continue Reading The EPA’s Threat to The New Source Performance Standards

In September 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed a series of bills aimed at drastically reshaping California’s approach to claims of discrimination and harassment amidst the “#MeToo” Movement. Among the legislation is Senate Bill 1300 which clarifies and expands employee rights under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). SB 1300, which was met with both opposition and support, became effective January 1, 2019. In addition to Senate Bill 1300, Gov. Brown also signed into law a series of bills on issues relating to workplace harassment, gender equality and human trafficking.

CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1300: HEIGHTENED EXPOSURE FOR EMPLOYERS

SB 1300 intends to close loopholes in the law that discourage or prevent victims from speaking out, and allow employers to avoid sexual harassment and discrimination laws and leave employees vulnerable to sexual harassment at work. In an attempt to aid these efforts, SB 1300 provides the following enhancements, further described below: 1) a new “single occurrence” standard for sexual harassment cases; 2) increases the challenges of recovering litigation costs for defendants; 3) potentially holds employers liable for third-party harassment; 4) prohibits release of both claims and non-disparagement agreements; and 5) provides for workplace accommodation and bystander training.

“SINGLE OCCURRENCE” STANDARD

One highly significant implication of SB 1300 is that it now makes a single instance of sexually harassing conduct a potentially triable sexual harassment claim by statute. Under FEHA, action was required to be so “severe or pervasive” so as to create a hostile work environment before it was actionable. However, the term “severe or pervasive” was subjective, leaving room for interpretation as to what conduct would be significantly severe or pervasive to support a claim under the existing law. For example, in Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employee touching another employee’s chest under her sweater was not significant enough to rise to the level of “severe or pervasive,” and, thus, granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

SB 1300 narrows the definition of “severe or pervasive” by clarifying that a single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue, so long as the conduct limited the employee’s work performance or created a hostile work environment. The Legislation specifically rejects the court’s holding in Brooks and states that the case opinion shall not be used in determining what kind of conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a violation of the FEHA.

Of significance to litigation resulting from employment claims, SB 1300 affirms the court’s opinion in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243. In Nazir, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his former employer, United Airlines, and his former supervisor (“Defendants”). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, seeking adjudication of 44 issues. The appellate court found that hostile work environment cases involve issues that are “not determinable on paper.” SB 1300’s reference to the finding in the Nazir case that employment issues are too complex for motions for summary judgment may be a threat to the validity of future motions for summary judgment in employment law cases which has been a common and successful defense tactic.
Continue Reading California Enacts Legislation to Combat Discrimination and Harassment