CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for March, 2020

The CARES Act and What It Means for State and Local Governments

Posted on: March 31st, 2020

By: Jacob Daly

Much of the focus on the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act has been on the relief it provides for individuals and both large and small businesses, as well as the funding it provides for public health initiatives.  Rightfully so.  But the relief it provides for state and local governments should not be overlooked.  Of the $2 trillion appropriated by the law, about $424 billion is allocated for state, local, and tribal governments.  The law also provides additional funding for joint federal-state programs such as Medicaid and unemployment compensation.

The largest single appropriation in the CARES Act for state, local, and tribal governments is $150 billion for the creation of a Coronavirus Relief Fund.  (Note that local governments are eligible to participate in this fund only if they have a population of more than 500,000.)  Of this amount, $3 billion is allocated for Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, and $8 billion is allocated for tribal governments.  The remaining $139 billion is to be allocated proportionally among the states, with each state receiving at least $1.25 billion.  Eligible local governments may not receive more than 45% of the amount allocated to the state in which they are located.  A chart prepared by Federal Funds Information for States showing the estimated allocation of the entire Coronavirus Relief Fund among the states, District of Columbia, Territories, and Tribes can be accessed here.

To be eligible for these funds, the chief executive of the government must certify to the Secretary of Treasury that it will comply with the following three conditions:

  1. the funds may be used only for necessary expenditures relating to COVID-19;
  2. the funds may not be used for expenditures that are already accounted for in the government’s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020; and
  3. the funds must be used for costs incurred between March 1, 2020, and December 30, 2020.

The Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury has oversight responsibility for funds provided to state, local, and tribal governments, and if it is determined that these funds were used improperly, the offending government must reimburse the federal government.

Other funding for which for state, local, and tribal governments may be eligible includes the following:

  • $454 billion for loans to businesses, states, and cities
  • $30.75 billion for an Education Stabilization Fund for states, school districts, and institutions of higher education for costs relating to COVID-19
  • $45 billion for a Disaster Relief Fund
  • $1.4 billion for deployments of the National Guard
  • $4.3 billion, through the CDC, to support efforts of federal, state, and local public health agencies
  • $25 billion for transit systems
  • $400 million in election security grants for the 2020 federal election cycle
  • $100 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants for emergency management activities
  • $45 million in grants to states for child welfare services
  • $850 million in grants through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program to states for continuation of criminal justice programs
  • $5 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program to enable state and local governments to expand community health facilities, child care centers, food banks, and senior services

The CARES Act was phase 3 of the federal government’s legislative response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Some members of Congress are already talking about phase 4, and when that happens, FMG will provide timely information about what it means for you.

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include the CCPA, the CARES Act, Education Claims, Law Enforcement and the viruses’ impact on the Construction Industry. Click here to register.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.** 

With the 2020 Drafts in Limbo due to COVID-19, could College Athletes find Coverage under “Loss of Value” Policies?

Posted on: March 31st, 2020

By: Matthew Jones

The effective shutdown of sporting events due to the spread of COVID-19 is having a financial effect on many people in all walks of life.  Perhaps overlooked are college athletes who aspire to have contracts with professional teams. Increasingly, college athletes are insuring their careers against “Loss of Value” to protect the value of future contracts from decreasing below a predetermined amount due to significant injury or illness suffered during the coverage period. These policies are particularly important for athletes during the year leading up to their draft eligibility. Whether delays in the drafts will be covered by these policies is uncertain.

The policies require medical underwriting and may exclude specific pre-existing injuries or illnesses, such as osteoarthritis or degenerative conditions, drug and alcohol use, criminal acts, and mental, nervous or psychological disorders. Insurers first determine an athlete’s eligibility based on projected draft position. Depending on that position, policy limits vary between $1 million and $10 million. The underwriters then set a loss-of-value threshold: If the athlete is drafted below a specific position, and must sign for a lesser amount, the policy may be triggered. If the contract amount falls below that threshold as a direct result of injury or illness, the insurer will pay the difference between the contract’s value and the predetermined threshold.

Injury or illness does not automatically trigger benefits.  Instead, the athlete must tie the injury or illness directly to a decrease in value or lower draft position. Insurers evaluate other issues as well, including off-field conduct, poor performance during the season or at pre-draft events, a rise in the draft value of other athletes, and changes in a professional teams’ needs.

Loss of Value insurance generally applies in the context of injuries and illnesses, but what happens when a season has been forfeited?  The NCAA cancelled all spring sports for the remainder of the season, effectively ending the careers of many senior athletes in spring sports.  While some athletes may look to their Loss of Value insurance policies for protection, the policies may not apply if it the loss is not based on injury or illness. 

If an athlete contracted the coronavirus the analysis is much different.  When the NCAA is considering questions raised by an athlete’s illness it looks at “illness first manifested in the insured athlete during the period of this insurance which requires medical treatment by a physician and has negatively affected the athlete’s skills in a manner that causes substantial and material deterioration in his ability to perform in his occupation.”  It seems clear that coronavirus is as an “illness” under this definition assuming the athlete requires medical treatment, the illness negatively affects the athlete’s skills, and the negative effect causes substantial and material deterioration in the athlete’s ability to perform as a professional. 

In an attempt to help these athletes, the NCAA granted an extra year of eligibility.  But what does such a decision do to those athletes who contracted the virus?  Does it mitigate or diminish the potential losses of the athletes? As with other COVID-related matters, these unprecedented questions will likely need to be resolved through litigation.

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include the CCPA, the CARES Act, Education Claims, Law Enforcement and the viruses’ impact on the Construction Industry. Click here to register.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.** 

Challenges Begin to Coronavirus “Shelter In Place” Ordinances

Posted on: March 31st, 2020

By:  William J. Linkous, III

On March 24, 2020 a corporation “engaged in the business of purchasing, trading, and selling firearms, ammunition, tools, and other defensive and safety supplies to law enforcement and civilians” filed one of the first lawsuits in Georgia challenging a local government’s “Shelter in Place” ordinance.  The lawsuit, Clyde Armory, Inc. v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County et al., Athens-Clarke County Superior Court, lists the government entity as a defendant, as well as both the City/County Manager and the City/County Attorney in their official capacity as additional defendants.  The ordinance challenge is being brought “as applied” to Plaintiff, as well as “as applied” to other gun stores within the Athens-Clarke County jurisdiction.  The lawsuit brings challenges under both the Georgia Constitution, and the Federal Constitution, the latter of which raises the specter that the suit may be removed from Superior Court to Federal Court.

The lawsuit alleges that on March 16, 2020, Governor Brian Kemp declared a state of emergency in Georgia due to the COVID-19 virus pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 38-3-51.  It goes on to allege that on March 19, 2020, Athens-Clarke County passed its “Shelter in Place” ordinance pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 38-3-28.  The lawsuit alleges that although the ordinance might be interpreted to list gun stores as “Essential Activities” under the ordinance’s definition section, gun stores are not clearly listed as “Essential Businesses” allowed to remain open as normal during the state of emergency.  Interestingly, the lawsuit alleges that the City/County website indicates that gun stores are “Essential Businesses” that can remain open, but that the website does not have the force of law.

Calling the ordinance a quarantine, the lawsuit seeks an emergency injunction and declaratory judgment declaring the ordinance as an ultra vires act and an abuse of police powers.  It alleges that the ordinance legislates in an area for which the State of Georgia has enacted general laws in violation of O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (a) and complains that the ordinance cannot be appealed in the same manner as violations of state health regulations under state law.  It alleges more specifically that O.C.G.A. § 31-12-2.1 grants the Georgia Department of Public Health the primary responsibility for responding to public health emergencies.  The Plaintiff goes on to allege that the ordinance violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Georgia Constitution, citing to Old South Duck Tours v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 272 Ga. 869 (2000).  The suit also contends that the language of the ordinance is overly broad and vague as to the term “Essential Business” (citing Bullock v. City of Dallas, 248 Ga. 164 (1991)), that the ordinance creates arbitrary and capricious classifications, exceeds the scope of the City/County’s police powers, and violates the U.S. Second Constitutional Amendment right to bear arms, as well as the Georgia Constitution’s similar protections under Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII.  The lawsuit includes hints at a wider challenge of such ordinances, citing to Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71 (1988) and Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915) for broader Due Process and Equal Protection concepts under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the ordinance is unlawful, and an injunction stopping its enforcement.  It also seeks a declaration that Plaintiff can carry on its business as normal as an “Essential Business,” and seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 but does not seek damages.  Ultimately, the resolution of this matter may come down to Federal law, perhaps to be decided in Federal Court.  The Georgia Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 (2017) extended sovereign immunity to injunction and declaratory judgment claims against local governments where the constitutionality of their enactments is at issue, thus creating a possible barrier to the relief Plaintiff is seeking in the Clyde Armory case except as to the Federal claims.  Moreover, because in Georgia suits against local government officials in their official capacity are, in reality, suits against the local government itself, the inclusion of the local government Manager and Attorney would not seem to prevent the application of sovereign immunity to the claims.  In any event, it will be interesting to see whether the COVID-19 crisis ends before the Court can issue a definitive ruling in the Clyde Armory case.

Another lawsuit has been filed in Texas, challenging a “Shelter in Place” order issued by the Mayor of McKinney, Texas, although the basis of that lawsuit appears to be conflicting provisions of pandemic orders.  Last week, the NRA and other Second Amendment groups filed a Federal lawsuit in California to stop instances where local officials interpreted Governor Gavin Newsom’s “Shelter in Place” orders as making gun stores “non-essential.”  In addition, a coalition of gun-rights activists filed a lawsuit earlier this week against New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for closing gun stores and suspending legally required background checks amid the pandemic.  The same activists are considering whether to file lawsuits against other states and cities that have deemed firearms retailers as “non-essential.”  Interestingly, according to news reports, guns sales have skyrocketed during the pandemic, while crime rates have dropped, particularly in large cities.  Abortion rights groups have also reportedly filed suit in Texas to keep abortion clinics from being designated as “non-essential” businesses.  Local government officials and attorneys should pay close attention as these lawsuits progress, and evaluate their orders and ordinances accordingly.

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include the CCPA, the CARES Act, Law Enforcement and the viruses’ impact on the Construction Industry. Click here to register.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.** 

More States are Following New Jersey’s Lead in Enacting Legislation to Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19 Losses

Posted on: March 31st, 2020

By: Erin Lamb and Ben Dunlap

FMG reported extensively after New Jersey began debating a bill that would force insurers to cover Business Interruption losses arising from COVID-19. The New Jersey bill would require courts to ignore virus and bacteria exclusions, or other policy language that might exclude such losses.

Now legislatures in other states are joining that effort.

New York:  Assemblyman Robert C. Carroll, whose district covers parts of Brooklyn including Park Slope, introduced A10266, an Act “requiring certain perils be covered under business interruption insurance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.” The bill starts by saying it applies  “[n]otwithstanding any provisions of law, rule or regulation to the contrary.…” It goes on to decree that any policy of insurance insuring against loss or damage of property that includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption, must treat such interruption as a “covered peril” during a period of “declared state emergency due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.”

The New York bill appears designed to nullify the 2006 ISO exclusion on losses for virus or bacteria. Assemblyman Carroll wrote an op-ed stating that it is “…unconscionable that insurance companies that were bailed out in 2008 won’t pay out… because they say ’viruses’ were either explicitly carved out of policies or because adjusters claim a ‘virus’ is not a ‘physical’ interruption.” Like the New Jersey bill, the New York law would apply to businesses with less than 100 eligible employees and calls for funds to be collected and made available for relief and reimbursement for insurers who must pay claims under this Act. Such funds would be collected from the insurance companies themselves in a special purpose apportionment. It would be retroactive to March 7, 2020.

Carroll is calling for the New York State Legislature to push off passing a state budget until COVID-19 related policy issues are addressed. Such a measure is essentially the only way that the law could pass in this legislative session, and it would still be subject to constitutional challenge.

Massachusetts: The Massachusetts legislature is considering another bill that attacks the virus exclusion, and states that “…no insurer in the commonwealth may deny a claim for the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption on account of (i) COVID-19 being a virus (even if the relevant insurance policy excludes losses resulting from viruses); or (ii) there being no physical damage to the property of the insured or to any other relevant property.”

The bill’s application is limited to policies issued to businesses in Massachusetts with 150 or fewer full-time employees. It would also apply only until the termination of the state of emergency declared in the Governor’s March 10, 2020 Executive Order 591.

The Massachusetts bill also creates a reimbursement process. Before it can be passed in the current session, the legislature must first grant the bill special emergency status.

To FMG’s knowledge, the Massachusetts bill is the first of its kind to tie COVID-19 denials to unfair practices. It specifically invokes the provisions of M.G.L. c. 176D, which regulates unfair practices by insurance companies, creating the potential for substantial penalties on insurers.

Ohio: HB No. 589 also would require insurers offering business interruption insurance to cover losses attributable to COVID-19.

If passed, the Ohio bill would provide that “every policy of insurance insuring against loss or damage to property, which includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption, in force in [Ohio] on the effective date of this section, shall be construed to include among the covered perils under that policy, coverage for business interruption due to global virus transmission or pandemic during the state of emergency.”

It also would require that “[t]he coverage required by this section shall indemnify the insured, subject to the limits under the policy, for any loss of business or business interruption for the duration of the state of emergency,” which the bill defines as “the state of emergency declared under Executive Order 2020-01D, issued on March 9, 2020, to protect the well-being of Ohio citizens from the dangerous effects of COVID-19.”

The bill would limit its effects only to insureds: (1) located in Ohio; and (2) who employ 100 or fewer eligible employees; and (3) are covered by a policy in force on the effective date of this section.

Like the other bills in this category, Ohio’s bill would allow insurers who pay applicable COVID-19-related losses to request from the Ohio Superintendent of Insurance “relief and reimbursement from funds collected and made available” for the purpose of the bill. Further, the bill would require the Superintendent to assess all Ohio insurers for the funds needed to satisfy eligible reimbursement claims.

Federal reaction: At the federal level, Congresswoman Mikie Sherill of New Jersey signed a bipartisan letter to the heads of various industry groups urging them to consider coverage of such claims. Sherill told The Daily Beast that Congress is monitoring the issue and may include specific aid for business interruptions in a future stimulus bill.

We will continue to see these bills rolled out as Covid-19 claims increase. We will likely see a second round of such bills in the fall, once the pandemic has ceased enough for Americans to begin to see the toll of Covid-19 losses on local restaurants and small businesses, particularly if Congress has not acted.

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include the CCPA, the CARES Act, Law Enforcement and the viruses’ impact on the Construction Industry. Click here to register.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.** 

Telemedicine in a Time of Crisis

Posted on: March 31st, 2020

By: Shaun Daugherty

Social distancing has become a new phrase in our lexicon which has specific meaning and pervasive general understanding within the population.  Telemedicine seems like the ideal format for delivery of certain medical services during the emergency period caused by COVID-19.  However, pre-emergency regulations, restrictions and requirements for qualification and reimbursement to telehealth providers greatly reduced access to these kinds of services.  The CARES Act has taken aim at suspending many of these prior limitations on access and reimbursements to open much needed medical care to those that are in the most need. 

During the existence of the current medical emergency, Medicare beneficiaries are temporarily granted access to telemedicine services in several ways.  Previously, to provide medical services via telemedicine, the provider must have seen and treated the patient within the last three years.  In addition, the pre-emergency restrictions also required stringent real-time audio-visual technology be available on both ends of the service.  The new law temporary lifts and eases these restrictions and opens up the options for services to a broader base of patient.  Now, both new patients and existing patients can take advantage of telemedicine.  No longer does one need to be an established patient for a telemedicine visit.  Additionally, the provider does not have to be compliant with the strict real-time audio-visual requirements as before and things such as FaceTime or Skype calls are permissible. In certain instances, audio only visits are allowed as long as no images are being reviewed.  This is especially useful in those places where there may be limitations in the technology available as well as the functional limitations of those receiving the care. 

The new law temporarily allows for hospice recertification without a face-to-face visit and home dialysis patients to receive periodic evaluations using the telehealth technologies.  The geographic or location restrictions for providers of telemedicine services are also temporarily lifted.  Previously, the regulations limited reimbursements for Rural Health Clinics (RHC) and Federally Qualified Health Clinics (FQHC) to only those services defined as a face-to-face encounter.  The current Act lifts these restrictions and allows for Medicare to reimburse for telemedicine services provided by these RHCs and FQHCs.  The Act also provides the HHS Secretary with the authority to relax additional statutory restrictions on telehealth services to be covered by Medicare. 

Of the $2 trillion total allocated in the CARES Act, $14.4 billion has been specifically earmarked to increase the access of telemedicine to patients of the Veterans Administration facilities throughout the country.  An additional $2.15 billion has been allocated to the Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology to improve the infrastructure and increase the capabilities to deliver these types of healthcare services.  This is on top of the $27 billion allocated to the HHS’ Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to address increased access and infrastructure for telehealth generally. 

Opening the access to telemedicine services will hopefully help reduce the current strain on the healthcare communities by allowing providers to access patients remotely without exposing themselves or their patients to risks that could be avoided.  Those patients in remote or otherwise restricted locations can be screened and, in some instances, treated with the use of a smartphone.   While these measures are only temporary, the hope of many organizations that promote telemedicine is that it will pave the way for a more meaningful method of delivery of telemedicine services into the future. 

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include the CCPA, the CARES Act, Law Enforcement and the viruses’ impact on the Construction Industry. Click here to register.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**