John's Grill Inc., John Konstin v. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd., Norbay Insurance Services Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive
Published: Mar. 12, 2021 | Result Date: Feb. 10, 2021 | Filing Date: Apr. 15, 2020 |Case number: CGC-20-584184 Bench Decision – Defense
Judge
Court
San Francisco County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Nanci E. Nishimura
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)
Brian Danitz
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)
Andrew F. Kirtley
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP)
Defendant
Anthony J. Anscombe
(Steptoe LLP)
Johanna Oh
(Steptoe & Johnson LLP)
Sarah D. Gordon
(Steptoe & Johnson LLP)
Facts
Due to the spread of the novel virus COVID-19, the state of California and the city of San Francisco local authorities issued a stay-at-home order requiring restaurants to close for business. Plaintiff, John's Grill, Inc., a restaurant located in downtown San Francisco was forced to close its doors to the public due to the stay-at-home order. As result, plaintiff suffered severe financial losses as it was forced to lay off 54 of its workers. Plaintiff obtained Spectrum Business Owner's Policy No. 57 from defendants the Hartford Financial Services, Group, Inc., Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., and Norbay Insurance Services, Inc. On March 2020, plaintiff requested coverage from defendants under the said policy. Defendants denied plaintiff's request. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants in relation to defendant's denial of plaintiff's insurance claims.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant breached its contract because defendant had a contractual duty to provide plaintiff with insurance coverage under the policy. Plaintiff contended that defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by denying plaintiff insurance coverage to which plaintiff was entitled. Plaintiff further contended that defendant's denial of plaintiff's insurance claim was made in bad faith.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions. Defendant contended that plaintiff's complaint failed to state facts sufficient to plead a valid cause of action.
Result
The court sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's first amended complaint without leave to amend ruling that none of plaintiff's claims stated a cause of action.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390