In 2016, plaintiffs alleged an anonymous hacker stole personally identifiable information of at least 200,000 patients from an orthopedic clinic. The hacker demanded a ransom,… Read More »Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Liability for Data Breach
David Cook will be speaking at the upcoming 8th Annual Construction Law & Government Contracting Seminar. The Seminar will be held on October 8 –… Read More »AHC Partner to Speak at the Construction Law & Government Contracting Seminar
In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near… Read More »Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute
When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken &… Read More »Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute
Two Savannah homeowners filed a complaint against a local air conditioning contractor and its insurer, asserting claims of professional negligence and fraud. The couple alleged… Read More »Savannah homeowners win sizable judgment in mold case against HVAC contractor
Autry, Hall & Cook attorney David Cook contributed an article to the Atlanta Bar Construction Law Section. The article addresses a recent case that involved several… Read More »Atlanta Bar Construction Newsletter Article
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed the distinction between professional negligence vis‑à‑vis simple negligence. This distinction was particularly important in Hamilton-King v. HNTB Georgia, Inc., 2011 WL 2716073 (2011) because the trial court previously excluded Plaintiffs’ expert testimony, an essential part of its professional negligence claim. Without the expert testimony, Plaintiffs’ professional negligence claim was doomed. The only remaining question was whether Plaintiffs also asserted claims of simple negligence. Finding that the claims were based solely on professional negligence, the case was properly dismissed.