Caribe Restaurant & Nightclub Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Topa Insurance Company
Published: May 21, 2021 | Result Date: Apr. 9, 2021 | Filing Date: Apr. 17, 2020 |Case number: 2:20-cv-03570-ODW-MRW Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Christopher M. Cowper
(Cowper Law LLP)
Noel E. Garcia
(Cowper Law LLP)
Adam J. Levitt
(DiCello Levitt)
Amy E. Keller
(DiCello, Levitt & Gutzler LLC)
Daniel R. Ferri
(DiCello Levitt)
Mark S. Hamill
(Dicello Levitt Gutzler LLC)
Laura E. Reasons
(DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC)
Mark A. DiCello
(DiCello Levitt )
Kenneth P. Abbarno
(Dicello Levitt Gutzler LLC)
Mark Abramowitz
(DiCello Levitt)
W. Mark Lanier
(The Lanier Law Firm PC)
Alex J. Brown
(The Lanier Law Firm PC)
Mark McBride
(The Lanier Law Firm PC)
Timothy W. Burns
(Burns Bowen Bair LLP)
Jeff J. Bowen
(Burns Bowen Bair LLP)
Jesse J. Bair
(Burns Bowen Bair LLP)
Freya K. Bowen
(Burns Bowen Bair LLP)
Douglas Daniels
(Daniels & Tredennick)
Defendant
Jason D. Strabo
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)
Margaret M. Warner
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)
Gordon A. Greenberg
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)
Facts
Caribe Restaurant and Nightclub, Inc. owns and operates La Luz Ultralounge, a restaurant and nightclub in Bonita, CA. Caribe purchased an insurance policy from Topa Insurance. The Policy included "business income" coverage for loss due to the necessary suspension of operations following loss to property. The policy also covered loses from an action by a civil authority and would cover expenses incurred to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. As a result of orders issued by the government due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Caribe was forced to suspend or reduce business at La Luz. Caribe brought action against Topa alleging Topa refused to cover its loses due to COVID-19 under the Policy.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended Topa breached the contract when Topa refused to cover or pay for business losses. Plaintiffs also contended it had sustained "direct physical loss" of La Luz under the Policy because it was forced to suspend or reduce business at its location as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions. Defendants further contended the court should grant its motion to dismiss because an economic business impairment does not qualify as physical loss or damages of La Luz under the Policy.
Result
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390