COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Lawsuit in California Courts

One of the threshold issues for COVID-19 insurance compensation lawsuits filed nationwide is whether a policyholder’s claim meets the pleading standards that apply when alleging that the virus has caused property loss or damage. whether or not Courts often get it wrong, effectively imposing higher standards than necessary on policyholders. But recently, a federal judge in California has righted those wrongs by allowing the correct petition standard in that case. Ashcroft vs Iqbal, 556 US 662, 679 (2009). The court here ruled that policyholder Los Angeles his Lakers plea standard when it argued that the COVID-19 virus could cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. I have correctly recognized that the

In the complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers allege that the virus has physically altered its properties by altering the state of its chemical and physical properties, requiring remedial action before the properties are safe again. claimed to have created Los Angeles Lakers vs. Federal Reserve Board. ins.Ltd., 591 F. Sapp. 3d 672 (CD Cal. 2022), Comply with review, 2022 WL 16571193 (CD Cal. 26 October 2022). The court agreed that these claims by the Lakers properly asserted physical modifications to support the property damage claim. I emphasized and supported my previous decision.

Courts lack the scientific expertise necessary to reach conclusions based solely on the FAC’s arguments. . It is not plausible that the virus has physically altered Lakers property, as the Lakers aptly claimed. As a result, the court, in its March 17 order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove that theory will be determined in summary judgment or in court.

To support its rationale, the Court turned to developments in California appellate law, and, ultimately, to a recent decision in which the California Court of Appeals for the Second District reached the same conclusion as this paper. I was. marina pack. Hotel and Suites, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Ins., 81 Cal. app. 5th 96 (2022).Similar to the Los Angeles Lakers, policyholders Marina Pacific He argued that COVID-19 “not only inhabits the surface, but also binds to the surface through physicochemical reactions involving cells and surface proteins, changing the physical state of the property.” The court ruled that the policyholder “considered without question direct physical loss or damage to the covered property within a well-defined definition.” [by California courts]– A clear, demonstrable, physical alteration of an asset. ” identificationat 109. In conclusion, los angeles lakers court allowed Marina PacificCriticism of previous California appeals rulings, United Talent Agency v. Vigilant Ins., 77 caliber. app. 5th 821 (2022).the court was critical united talent agencyA “no evidence” determination that COVID-19 did not damage property, even though the policyholder claimed it did.

These decisions show why the development of state law remains important, even though state petition standards are lower than federal petition standards. California, unlike federal courts, does not have a plausible petition standard, but instead requires the court to consider the facts asserted in the petition to be true. marina pack., 81 caliber. app. 5th place with 110. This is especially important in the context of his COVID-19 insurance lawsuit. This is because a low threshold gives policyholders a chance to reject the denial motion and prove their case. In hindsight, this has proven wise because if you can present scientific evidence, you can support the policyholder’s claims. See Baylor Koll. of medicine. v. XL Ins.AM Co., Ltd.No. 2020-53316-A (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris Cty. Aug. 31, 2022) (After presenting expert evidence, the jury found that COVID-19 caused physical loss or damage. determined to be).^[1]

These recent decisions should encourage policyholders filing COVID-19 claims. This California ruling follows other recent lawsuits that have recognized the need for scientific evidence to evaluate these claims, and if there are claims that the virus has physically altered property, A motion to dismiss based solely on petition is inappropriate. for example, Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc. v. Ace Am. ins.unit., 2022 VT 45, ¶¶ 45-46 (Vt. Sept. 23, 2022) (It is necessary to hold scientific evidence to assess whether viruses can physically change their properties).^[2]

Previous lawsuits imposed higher pleading standards on policyholders than were required in COVID-19 insurance lawsuits, but recent rulings reflect a change in policy and are optimistic. provides a good reason. Ball is now truly in the “court” of courts, applying it right and allowing the discovery of medical and scientific evidence before making decisions about COVID-19’s ability to cause loss or damage. .

Full Opinion at Los Angeles Lakers vs. Federal Reserve Board. ins.Ltd.2022 WL 16571193 (CD Cal. 26 Oct 2022) can be found here.

[1] In a previous post, we covered the Baylor College of Medicine verdict.

[2] We covered the Huntington Ingalls ruling in a previous post.