Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The contamination exclusion in the Sharks business interruption insurance policy prevented the Sharks from showing any covered  physical loss or damage to property due to COVID-19.  If COVID stuck to surfaces making the premises unsafe, the alteration was an excluded contamination of the premises. Read More

Sticking with this court's prior decision in Marina Pacific Hotel & Suites, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, this decision holds (in an unpublished portion) that the presence of COVID-19 particles on surfaces of an insured's building is sufficient physical loss or damage to real property to allow coverage for business interruption.  In the published portion… Read More

COVID-19 closure orders did not excuse Fitness' nonperformance of its lease obligations.  The closure orders allowed commercial construction and so did not justify its stopping renovation of the leased premises as required by the lease.  The force majeure clause of the lease didn't excuse either stopping construction or failing to pay rent as neither of those "acts" were prevented by… Read More

When COVID shutdown its hotels, Hyatt temporarily furloughed many of its employees.  This decision holds that Hyatt violated Lab. Code 201 and 227.3 by failing to pay the furloughed workers their accrued but unpaid vacation pay at the time they were furloughed.  Under California law, a temporary layoff, with no specified return date within the normal pay period, is treated… Read More

The Judicial Council had constitutional authority to adopt Emergency Rule 9 extending statutes of limitation by six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Governor Newson's executive order granting the Judicial Council authority to adopt that rule was itself authorized by Gov. Code 8571. Read More

Interpreting Oregon law, the Ninth Circuit holds that a business interruption insurance policy that covered only losses due to direct physical loss or damage did not cover income lost due to COVID-19 government closure orders.  To fall within the policy's coverage, the loss must be due to a physical alteration of the property, which plaintiff didn't and couldn't allege. Read More

Lab. Code 2802 requires an employer to reimburse employees for expenses they incurred in working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.  It does not matter that the state's emergency stay-at-home caused the employees to work from home rather than in an office.  Lab. Code 2802 contains no causation requirement or excuse.  Rather the section requires an employer to reimburse employees… Read More

While the Rowland factors' foreseeability factors weigh in favor of imposing a duty of care on employers to take safety measures to prevent employees from contracting COVID-19 and transmitting the disease to family members and others, the public policy factors weigh against finding such a duty of care and they outweigh the foreseeability factors.  Recognizing liability would create staggering risk… Read More