California Supreme Court

Subscribe to California Supreme Court via RSS

Courts continue grappling with the application of California insurance law to COVID-19 business interruption claims. After three years of insurance claims and litigation, the California Supreme Court has agreed to provide guidance as to whether the actual or potential presence of SARS-CoV-2 on insured property can qualify as physical loss of or damage to property in Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Company.

District court proceedings

Another Planet operates and promotes concerts, events, and festivals in California and Nevada. After its insurer denied coverage for business income losses incurred, Another Planet filed suit in California federal court seeking coverage under its “all-risk” property insurance policy.

In its amended complaint, Another Planet alleged that the virus was present or would have been present had it not closed its venues in compliance with government orders. The insured further alleged that droplets of the COVID-19 virus physically altered the air and property surfaces, constituting physical loss or damage and rendering the property unusable for its intended purpose and function. The pleading further asserted that minimizing the spread of COVID-19 requires physical alterations, including physical distancing, regular disinfection, air filtration, and installation of physical barriers.      

Vigilant Insurance moved to dismiss on the basis that Another Planet had not sufficiently alleged direct physical loss or damage to property. On June 21, 2021, the District Court granted the insurer’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Continue Reading California Supreme Court to offer guidance for COVID-19 coverage cases

On Monday, June 4, 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company must provide liability coverage to its corporate insured against claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of its employee, who allegedly sexually assaulted a 13-year-old child. The case is Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018). This decision is “of exceptional importance to injured parties, employers, and insurance companies doing business in California,” wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an order certifying the issue to the California Supreme Court.

In 2002, Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co. (L&M) entered into a contract with the San Bernadino School District for a construction project at a local middle school. L&M hired Darold Hecht to work on the project. In 2010, a 13-year-old student at the school (Jane Doe), filed suit asserting numerous claims against L&M, alleging that she was sexually abused by Hecht. One of Doe’s claims against L&M alleged negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of Hecht. L&M’s insurer, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, agreed to defend L&M under a reservation of rights.Continue Reading California Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of insureds

A California appeals court recently sharpened the teeth of insurance companies’ duty to settle [Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 159].  By broadening the situations in which an insurer can be held liable for failing to settle within limits to include cases that never go to verdict or judgment, this ruling protects policyholders from unreasonable insurer decision-making without forcing them into risky trials.  With a clear split among the California Appellate Divisions, this issue is now ripe for Supreme Court review.

On the set of Warner Bros.’ superhero film “Green Lantern,” a stunt gone wrong injured a special effects supervisor, who then sued Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and related entities to recover damages for his injuries. Warner Bros. had a $2 million primary policy and $3 million umbrella policy with Fireman’s Fund, and an excess policy of $50 million with Ace American to respond to the accident.
Continue Reading Recent California Ruling Enables Excess Carriers to Put Additional Pressure On a Primary Carrier to Accept a Reasonable Policy Limits Demand

This post was also written by Megan Demeter.

On March 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in State of California v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. S149988. In this unanimous decision, the court resolved several issues in favor of the policyholder regarding the application of pollution exclusion provisions in the State’s comprehensive general liability insurance policies. The case arises out of the State of California’s liability for environmental contamination at the “Stringfellow Acid Pits,” a state designed and operated waste-disposal facility in Riverside County, California.

First, the Court addressed the relevant “discharge” for determining whether the “sudden and accidental” exception to the pollution exclusion applied and, therefore, reinstated coverage that otherwise would have been excluded. The contamination at issue was caused by the escape into the environment of pollutants placed into containment ponds on the site. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the relevant discharge for purposes of determining whether the discharge was “sudden and accidental” is the release of waste from the containment ponds, rather than the initial disposal of waste into the ponds, as the insurers argued.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Issues Sweeping Pro-Policyholder Decision on Environmental Liability Coverage Issues