Founder Inst. Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 22 October 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-04466-VC |
Citation | 497 F.Supp.3d 678 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | FOUNDER INSTITUTE INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
497 F.Supp.3d 678
FOUNDER INSTITUTE INCORPORATED, Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 20-cv-04466-VC
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Signed October 22, 2020
Sanjiv Nand Singh, Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, CA, Michael Budi Indrajana, Indrajana Law Group, a Professional Law Corp., San Mateo, CA, for Plaintiff.
Melanie Atswei Ayerh, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Sarah D. Gordon, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, Anthony John Anscombe, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26
VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge
Sentinel's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted. Assuming—for argument's sake only—that the claim for loss of business income due to the shelter-in-place orders would otherwise be covered by Founder's insurance policy, the claim clearly falls within the virus exclusion for the reasons explained by Judge Corley in Franklin EWC, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. , 488 F.Supp.3d 904, 906–07, (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2020). See also
Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Co. , 479 F.Supp.3d 353, 360–61, (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2020) ; Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds , 492 F.Supp.3d 417, 426–27, (W.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2020).
Founder seeks to wriggle out of the exclusion by attaching a different label to its loss. Instead of characterizing it as a loss resulting from the risk of virus exposure at its building, Founder characterizes it as a loss resulting from respiratory droplets on surfaces at its building. Founder claims that "the droplets (not the virus itself) are the real focus of ordinances seeking to limit human to fomite to human transmission and should have been the real focus of damage or loss investigation by Defendants." The virus exclusion, according to Founder, does not exclude losses related to saliva or respiratory droplets. But even assuming the validity of this contorted characterization of the purpose behind the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
... ... products by individuals of any age, or relating to fire 497 F.Supp.3d 586 safety standards for tobacco ... See, e.g., U.S. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. , 848 F.3d 1161, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) ("There is no ... Given his role in the company as a founder and officer and given the more specific allegations about ... ...
-
Risinger Holdings, LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
...520 F. Supp. 3d 1158, 1164, 1166–67 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 16, 2021) (Clark, J.); Founder Inst. Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 497 F. Supp. 3d 678, 679–80 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2020) (Chhabria, J.); Nahmad v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. , 499 F. Supp. 3d 1178, 1183, 1188–90 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2020) (Blo......
-
Cosmetic Laser, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
...and reject Urogynecology ’s conclusion") (quoting Urogynecology , 489 F. Supp. 3d at 1302–03 ); Founder Inst. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 497 F. Supp. 3d 678, 679 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ("[T]he district court in [ Urogynecology ] did not cite anything—from the complaint or elsewhere—that would su......
-
Leal, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
...2021) ; Franklin EWC, Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 506 F.Supp.3d 854 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ; Founder Inst. Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 497 F. Supp. 3d 678 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ; Wilson v. Hartford Cas. Co., 492 F. Supp. 3d 417 (E.D. Pa. 2020) ("The Policy language here ... is conspic......