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.

Following Marina Pacific Hotel & Suites, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, this decision holds that a complaint alleging that COVID-19 physically changes the business premises by virus-infected droplets adhering to surfaces and transforming them into disease-spreading modalities states an actionable claim for coverage under standard CGL business interruption coverage language. Read More

The supplementary payments provision of this contractor's CGL policy provided that if the insured contractor faced liability for personal injury or property damage pursuant to an indemnity provision in one of the insured's contracts, the insurer would pay for the insured's defense but count any recovery by the indemnitee as damages against the $1 million limit on coverage.  The supplementary… Read More

Under FRCivP 24(a), a would-be intervenor must show that it has a significant protectable interest as to the property or transaction involved in the dispute which may be impaired by resolution of the case as well as that the motion to intervene was timely and the existing parties don't or can't protect the intervenor's interest.  Here, the plaintiff sought a… Read More

Under a manuscript endorsement, Yahoo's insurance policy provided covereage for “injury . . . arising out of . . . [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”  This decision holds that the "restrictive relative phrase" "that violates a person's right of privacy" might under standard rules of English usage and the… Read More

A divorce decree required ex-husband to maintain wife as 25% owner of his life insurance policy and forfeited to her the entire ownerhip interest if he stopped paying the premiums and she took over that burden.  That's what happened, as defendant's agent knew.  The agent's knowledge was imputed to defendant.  The insurance policy’s requirements for changing ownership do not control… Read More

In 2004-2011, Travelers issued workers compensation policies to Adir Int'l, LLC which contained a reference to a side agreement allowing retroactive recalculation of the premiums.  The policies were filed with the Insurance Commissioner, as required; the side agreement was not.  When Travelers demanded retroactive premiums, Adir sued for a declaration that the side agreement was illegal and unenforceable since it… Read More

The communicable disease extension of the comprehensive property insurance policy that Fireman's issued to Amy's provided coverage for the costs of remediating, cleaning, disinfecting, etc. the premises after a communicable disease event, defined to mean  “an event in which a public health authority has ordered that a location be evacuated, decontaminated, or disinfected due to the outbreak of a communicable… Read More

This decision holds that the insured's original complaint failed to allege a covered business interruption loss due to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders.  However, it also holds that it was error to deny the insured leave to amend since the demurrer had been sustained to the insured's original complaint, the insured requested leave to amend and described in some detail what additional… Read More

The insured landlord's CGL policy excluded claims for claims arising out of actual or claimed uninhabitable conditions on the premises--and all other claims (whether or not otherwise covered) which were alleged in the same suit as claims for non-habitability.  This decision holds that the exclusion was plain, clear, conspicuous, and enforceable.  As a result, the exclusion relieved the insurer of… Read More

For purposes of ERISA plan insurance policies, the Ninth Circuit defines "accident" or "accidental" to mean that the insured did not subjectively expect injury or death to result from his actions--so long as those subjective expectations were reasonable from the insured's perspective.  If the insured's subjective expectation cannot be ascertained, then the court asks whether a reasonable person with a… Read More

Ins. Code 1063.2(c)(2) is more specific than, and prevails over Ins. Code 1063.1(c)(5), barring a claimant or its subrogated insurer from suing the at-fault driver for damages the driver caused to the claimant's property if the driver's insurer was a member of CIGA and went insolvent after the accident. Read More

Bucking the trend and disagreeing with United Talent Agency v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 821, this decision holds that the trial court erred in sustaining the insurer's motion to dismiss this suit seeking coverage under a CGL policy's business interruption coverage for losses sustained by reason of COVID-19.  It reasons that however improbable it may now seem, on… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying this case under CCP 410.30 on the ground of forum non conveniens.  The complaint sought a declaration regarding the plaintiffs' duty to defend and indemnify defendants under various insurance policies for opioid litigation brought against defendants throughout the country.  There was already an on-going coverage action involving plaintiff and defendant… Read More

Following Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2021) 15 F.4th 885 and Inns-by-the-Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 688, this decision holds that business interruption insurance providing coverage for interruption due to physical loss or damage to property does not cover losses caused by the COVID pandemic or associated government-ordered shut downs of business… Read More

1 2 3 7