Robert W. Fountain, Inc. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am.
Decision Date | 09 December 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-05441-CRB |
Citation | 506 F.Supp.3d 847 |
Parties | ROBERT W. FOUNTAIN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Guy Orville Kornblum, Yaelle E. Shaham, Mukesh Advani, Guy O. Kornblum, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Emma Berit Lloyd, Stephen M. Hayes, Tyler Ramsey Austin, Hayes Scott Bonino Ellingson Guslani Simonson & Clause LLP, San Carlos, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiffs Robert W. Fountain, Inc. and Robert W. Fountain (collectively, "Fountain"), operators of an event planning business in San Francisco, California, brought suit against their insurer, Defendant Citizens Insurance Company of America, for breach of contract and declaratory relief. See generally Compl. (dkt. 3). Fountain claims that it is entitled to insurance coverage for business income losses flowing from the San Francisco and California statewide "shelter in place" and "stay home" orders issued in March 2020. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. Citizens now moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that coverage does not exist for Fountain's claims because Fountain did not suffer a direct physical loss of or damage to property, and a Virus Exclusion in the policy precludes coverage. Mot. (dkt. 13) at 1–2.1 The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing currently set for December 17, 2020. See Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Fountain alleges that the San Francisco and California statewide "shelter in place" and "stay at home" orders of March 2020 "were issued for public health reasons as a result of a pandemic of a disease called coronavirus 2019, or COVID-19." Compl. ¶ 9. It adds that "Plaintiffs did not suffer from this virus nor was there evidence that it existed or even threatened their business establishment." Id. Fountain contends that "Because of these governmental orders, Plaintiffs were physically unable to utilize their business premises and thus lost the physical use thereof." Id. ¶ 10. Fountain made a claim to Citizens for business interruption coverage under two successive and identical Citizens insurance policies: Businessowners insurance policy number OBF-9926622, with effective dates of 05/01/2019 to 05/01/2020, and 05/01/2020 to 05/01/2121. Id. ¶¶ 6, 11; Austin Decl. (dkt. 13-1) Ex. 1. Citizens denied the claim. Compl. ¶ 12.
The policies state that Citizens "will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." Austin Decl. Ex. 1 at 33. The policies define "Covered Causes of Loss" as "Risks of direct physical loss unless the loss is" excluded by the Policy's exclusions. Id. at 35. The two relevant provisions of the policies are (A) the Business Income provision, and (B) the Virus Exclusion provision.
The policies define the Business Income coverage as follows:
Id. at 39. The policies then define the Period of Restoration as follows:
The policies define the Virus Exclusion as follows:
Interpretation of these two provisions is critical to resolving Citizens’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper "when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). As with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), "a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy." Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). "A dismissal on the pleadings for failure to state a claim is proper only if ‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved[.]’ " McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Doleman v. Meiji Mut. Life Ins. Co., 727 F.2d 1480, 1482 (9th Cir. 1984) ). A court "must presume all factual allegations of the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).
Under California law, the interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1, 18, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619 (1995). Grants of coverage are to be interpreted broadly, while exclusions are interpreted narrowly and against the insurer. Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales, 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 867, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 (2000). "The insurer bears the burden of proving ... the applicability of an exclusion ...." State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 872 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1989). The court must "look first to the language of the contract in order to ascertain its plain meaning or the meaning a layperson would ordinarily attach to it." Waller, 11 Cal. 4th at 18, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619 (citation omitted). The plain language of the insurance policy governs its interpretation. See Bank of the W. v. Superior Ct., 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1264–65, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 (1992). A policy provision is ambiguous if it is "capable of two or more constructions, both of which are reasonable." Waller, 11 Cal. 4th at 18, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619. If the language is ambiguous or unclear, "it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it." Bank of the W., 2 Cal. 4th at 1264–65, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545. Courts should "not strain to create an ambiguity where none exists." Waller, 11 Cal. 4th at 18–19, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619.
There is no coverage for Fountain's losses under the policies.
First, despite Fountain's efforts, see Compl. ¶ 10 ( ), it has not plausibly alleged "direct physical loss of or damage to" property, as required by the policies, see Austin Decl. Ex. 1 at 33 ( ), 39 (" ‘suspension’ must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to a described premises"). Business losses resulting from the temporary inability to access an unharmed property are not "direct physical loss of or damage to" property. They are quite obviously not "damage to property" given the plain meaning of those words. But neither are they "direct physical loss of" property.
Citizens relies on MRI Healthcare Center of Glendale, Inc. v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 187 Cal. App. 4th 766, 779, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 (2010), which held that a policy that covered "accidental direct physical loss to business personal property" required that a property undergo a "distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration." See Mot. at 8–9. Citizens argues that, as there has been no physical alteration to Fountain's property, there has been no direct physical loss. Id.; see also Crisco, et al. v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, et al., No. 19-07320 WHA, 2020 WL 7122476, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2020) .
This Court is persuaded by Total Intermodal Servs. Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 17-04908 AB (KSx), 2018 WL 3829767, at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) and Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 20-03213-JST, 487 F.Supp.3d 834,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barbizon Sch. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
...loss" contemplates a distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration of the property. See Robert W. Fountain, Inc. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. , 506 F.Supp.3d 847, 851–52, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2020) (citing Crisco ).Plaintiffs cite to Hughes v. Potomac Insurance Company of District of Columbia , ......
-
Dye Salon, LLC v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co.
...the virus exclusion applied. See id.Judge Charles Breyer came to the same conclusion in Robert W. Fountain, Inc. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. , 506 F.Supp.3d 847 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2020). In Fountain , a group of policy owners submitted insurance claims for losses arising out of stay-at-home......
-
Stanford Dental, PLLC v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc.
...the virus exclusion applied. See id.Judge Charles Breyer came to the same conclusion in Robert W. Fountain, Inc. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. , 506 F.Supp.3d 847, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2020). In Fountain , a group of policy owners submitted insurance claims for losses arising out of stay-at-hom......
- Simplehuman, LLC v. Itouchless Housewares & Prods., Inc.