This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Breach of Contract
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Best Auto Repair, Inc. et al. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America et al.

Published: Oct. 13, 2023 | Result Date: Jul. 21, 2022 | Filing Date: Apr. 2, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-02874-FLA-PD Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Harout G. Keosian
(Keosian Law LLP)

Eileen Keusseyan
(Keusseyan Law LLP)


Defendant

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Richard J. Doren
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Deborah L. Stein
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)


Facts

Best Auto Repair, Inc. had a business insurance policy issued by Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Best Auto and other business insured by Travelers were required to cease operations due to government orders. On January 15, 2021, Best Auto, along with thirteen other companies, filed suit against Travelers in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Travelers removed the suit to federal court.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The plaintiffs contended that they had insurance policies issued by the defendant; that the policies provided coverage for direct physical loss of or damage to insured property; that the COVID-19 virus had entered into their premises and caused damage to their property; that they suffered losses as a result of this damage and as a result of the government orders requiring them to cease normal operations; and that the defendant had wrongfully denied their claims for coverage. As a result, the plaintiffs contended the defendant was liable for breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; bad faith denial of insurance claims; unfair business practices; intentional misrepresentation; constructive fraud; unjust enrichment; declaratory relief; injunctive relief; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and negligent misrepresentation.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiffs' material allegations. Moreover, the defendant contended that the plaintiffs' claims were not covered under the policy.

Result

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.


#141624

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390