https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NOrJ40aTpK1xrp-se3GguWKqcPcCA5L1/view?usp=sharing
NO. H048443
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Sixth District
THE INNS BY THE SEA, Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
On Appeal from the Superior Court for Monterey County
Hon. Lydia M. Villareal
Case No. 20CV001274
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
INTRODUCTION
In short, this insurance coverage case presents the issue of whether a policyholder reasonably expects the standard-form “direct physical loss of or damage to” provision in an “all risk” property insurance policy to cover business-interruption losses resulting from the “loss of or damage to” property caused by COVID-19 (and the governmental orders that followed), because COVID-19 and the orders have caused “loss” or “damage.” While the context is new, the applicable principles are not, and when they are applied correctly, the answer is “yes.”
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Respondent cannot show (1) its interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation; and (2) even under its interpretation, the allegations would not create a possibility of coverage. As a result, Inns respectfully requests that this Court reverse the Superior Court’s judgment and remand for decision on the remaining issues or allow Inns to amend its Complaint.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Sixth District
THE INNS BY THE SEA, Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
On Appeal from the Superior Court for Monterey County
Hon. Lydia M. Villareal
Case No. 20CV001274
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
INTRODUCTION
In short, this insurance coverage case presents the issue of whether a policyholder reasonably expects the standard-form “direct physical loss of or damage to” provision in an “all risk” property insurance policy to cover business-interruption losses resulting from the “loss of or damage to” property caused by COVID-19 (and the governmental orders that followed), because COVID-19 and the orders have caused “loss” or “damage.” While the context is new, the applicable principles are not, and when they are applied correctly, the answer is “yes.”
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Respondent cannot show (1) its interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation; and (2) even under its interpretation, the allegations would not create a possibility of coverage. As a result, Inns respectfully requests that this Court reverse the Superior Court’s judgment and remand for decision on the remaining issues or allow Inns to amend its Complaint.
Dated: April 6, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment