As a result of a shooting death at the bar operated on plaintiff’s property, the city revised its permit to allow use only as a banquet facility, not a bar, and the plaintiff lost substantial revenue it would have earned had the premises been used for a bar. Plaintiff secured a default judgment against the guard service it had hired for the bar, who it claimed was responsible for the shooting incident. Plaintiff then sought indemnity from the guard service’s CGL insurer. Held, plaintiff’s loss of the ability to use its property as a bar qualified as “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured,” a loss expressly covered by the CGL policy. The proper focus is on how the plaintiff may use its tangible property, not on the loss of the intangible license that restricts that use.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2 (Ramirez, P.J.); October 25, 2018; 8 Cal. App. 5th 729