COVID-19

Plaintiff's complaint alleged a viable claim for employer liability outside the Workers Compensation Act for a worker's injury due to the employer's fraudulent concealment.  Lab. Code 3602(b)(2).  Three elements comprise a fraudulent concealment claim: “(1) the employer knew that the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury; (2) the employer concealed that knowledge from the plaintiff; and (3) the injury was… Read More

The actual or potential presence of COVID-19 on an insured’s premises generally does not constitute direct physical loss or damage to property within the meaning of a commercial property insurance policy under California law.  Direct physical loss or damage to property requires a distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration to property.  Any alternation of the premises due to the adherence of COVID-19… Read More

Through defendant talent agency, plaintiff hired several performers for a rock concert to be held in April 2020.  Under the contract, plaintiff made a $6 million deposit that was non-refundable.  However, the contract had a force majeure clause which defined force majeure broadly enough to include cancellation of the concert due to COVID restrictions.  However, the clause further provided that… Read More

The contamination exclusion in the Sharks business interruption insurance policy prevented the Sharks from showing any covered  physical loss or damage to property due to COVID-19.  If COVID stuck to surfaces making the premises unsafe, the alteration was an excluded contamination of the premises. Read More

Sticking with this court's prior decision in Marina Pacific Hotel & Suites, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, this decision holds (in an unpublished portion) that the presence of COVID-19 particles on surfaces of an insured's building is sufficient physical loss or damage to real property to allow coverage for business interruption.  In the published portion… Read More

COVID-19 closure orders did not excuse Fitness' nonperformance of its lease obligations.  The closure orders allowed commercial construction and so did not justify its stopping renovation of the leased premises as required by the lease.  The force majeure clause of the lease didn't excuse either stopping construction or failing to pay rent as neither of those "acts" were prevented by… Read More

When COVID shutdown its hotels, Hyatt temporarily furloughed many of its employees.  This decision holds that Hyatt violated Lab. Code 201 and 227.3 by failing to pay the furloughed workers their accrued but unpaid vacation pay at the time they were furloughed.  Under California law, a temporary layoff, with no specified return date within the normal pay period, is treated… Read More

The Judicial Council had constitutional authority to adopt Emergency Rule 9 extending statutes of limitation by six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Governor Newson's executive order granting the Judicial Council authority to adopt that rule was itself authorized by Gov. Code 8571. Read More

Interpreting Oregon law, the Ninth Circuit holds that a business interruption insurance policy that covered only losses due to direct physical loss or damage did not cover income lost due to COVID-19 government closure orders.  To fall within the policy's coverage, the loss must be due to a physical alteration of the property, which plaintiff didn't and couldn't allege. Read More

Lab. Code 2802 requires an employer to reimburse employees for expenses they incurred in working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.  It does not matter that the state's emergency stay-at-home caused the employees to work from home rather than in an office.  Lab. Code 2802 contains no causation requirement or excuse.  Rather the section requires an employer to reimburse employees… Read More

While the Rowland factors' foreseeability factors weigh in favor of imposing a duty of care on employers to take safety measures to prevent employees from contracting COVID-19 and transmitting the disease to family members and others, the public policy factors weigh against finding such a duty of care and they outweigh the foreseeability factors.  Recognizing liability would create staggering risk… Read More