Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
Decision date
15 November 2021
Deciding body (English)
Court of Appeals of California
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Double jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Consumer protection
Further areas addressed
Property
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected

Case analisys

General Summary

The Plaintiff, an insured company, sought coverage for its lost business income resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic under a policy issued for its inns. The trial court has sustained the insurer's demurrer without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's order, arguing that business income insurance coverage was not triggered because the policy used the phrase “direct physical loss of or damage to property”. It considered that the insured did not establish that its suspension of operations was caused by direct physical damage to the property, despite the allegation that COVID-19 was present on its premises, or by direct physical loss of property, despite the allegation that the property could not function as intended. Therefore, the claim of the Plaintiff was rejected.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiff operates five lodging facilities in California. On January 9, 2020, it renewed its commercial insurance policy with the insurance company, which included commercial property insurance covering each of its five lodging facilities. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in government orders restricting the movement of citizens and the operation of businesses. On March 24, 2020, the Plaintiff made a claim to the insurance company under its commercial property insurance coverage for the loss of business income caused by the pandemic. On the same day, the insurer denied coverage, stating that “[l]oss of business due to reasons other than covered physical damage is beyond the scope of the insurance policy.” On April 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the insurance company in Monterey County Superior Court. The complaint pled causes of action for:

  1. declaratory relief,
  2. breach of contract,
  3. breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
  4. bad faith denial of insurance coverage,

all of which were based on the allegation that the Policy provided coverage for its loss of business income due to the pandemic.

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
  • Declaratory relief
  • Breach of contract
  • Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
  • Bad faith denial of insurance coverage
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court has argued that the policy used the phrase “direct physical loss of or damage to property,” and the insured did not establish that its suspension of operations was caused by direct physical damage to the property, despite the allegation that COVID-19 was present on its premises, or by direct physical loss of property, despite the allegation that the property could not function as intended. It has stated that the absence of a virus exclusion in the policy did not impact the meaning of “direct physical loss of or damage to” property. Furthermore, the Court has argued that the policy's civil authority coverage was not triggered because county stay-at-home and closure orders were issued to prevent the spread of COVID-19, not due to direct physical loss of or damage to any property.

The Court has also argued that although insurance contracts have special features, they are still contracts to which the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply. It has stated that the Court's goal in construing insurance contracts, as with contracts generally, is to give effect to the parties’ mutual intentions. Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract.

Finally, the Court has pointed out that the insured has the burden of establishing that a claim, unless specifically excluded, is within the basic coverage, while the insurer has the burden of establishing that a specific exclusion applies.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court has concluded that despite an insured's allegation that COVID-19 was present on the premises of its inns, it did not identify any direct physical damage to property that caused it to suspend its operations. Therefore, the business income coverage was not triggered. It has concluded that in the context of first party property insurance, mere loss of use of physical property to generate business income, without any other physical impact on the property, does not give rise to coverage for direct physical loss. It has stated that the requirement that the loss be physical excludes alleged losses that are intangible and precludes any claim against the property insurer when the insured merely suffers a detrimental economic impact unaccompanied by a distinct, demonstrable, or physical alteration of the property. The Court has concluded that “under this rule, operations are not what is insured the building and the personal property in or on the building are.”

Regarding the arguments of the Plaintiff concerning a possible amendment of the claim with more scientific information about how COVID-19 is transmitted and how it can persist on surfaces and in the air, the Court concluded that it still would not state a claim for relief under either the business income or civil authority coverage provisions.

The Court has further concluded that the scenario pled in the complaint does not state a claim because (1) Inns' suspension of operations was caused by the orders, not by any physical damage to property, and (2) mere loss of use of real property to generate income does not give rise to coverage. Finally, it has stated that specific scientific information would not solve the fundamental problem that the orders were issued to prevent the spread of COVID-19 rather than due to any.

Therefore, the Court has rejected the appeal and sustained that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Right to property
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. property
General principle applied
Principles of contractual interpretation
Author of the case note
Maira Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Laura Piva on 21 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies