Categories
Business Income Cases CCLT Reporting Methods

K.C. Hopps v. Cincinnati to go to trial October 25; ruling reveals limits of CCLT website

Author: Tom Baker Date: 09.23.21

K.C. Hopps v. Cincinnati to go to trial October 25; ruling reveals limits of CCLT website

On September 21, 2021 U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Bough of the Western District of Missouri  issued a summary judgment ruling that sets K.C. Hopps v. Cincinnati for trial.  Judge Bough held: “Whether the virus was present on Plaintiff’s premises, whether it actually caused a physical loss or physical damage to Plaintiff’s premises, and the extent of Plaintiff’s damages due to that ‘loss’ are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment.”  Judge Bough distinguished the 8th Circuit’s ruling in Oral Surgeons on the grounds that the plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to establish physical loss or damage under the policy and held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to get to a jury on that issue.  Accordingly, Judge Bough denied the insurer’s summary judgment motion on the physical loss or damage issue.  The trial date is October 25, 2021.  Stay tuned.

By any measure, this ruling represents a significant policyholder win, especially in the current context.  Yet, because Judge Bough granted the insurer’s summary judgment motion on the ingress/egress issue, the ruling is displayed on the CCLT website as “Insurer MSJ Granted.”  The CCLT database accurately allows summary judgment rulings to be coded as full or partial, but the trial court rulings webpage doesn’t yet reflect that distinction.  We are working to fix this.  In the meantime, readers should understand that, notwithstanding that Cincinnati’s MSJ was granted (in part), the ruling belongs in the “loss” column for insurers.

Categories
Business Income Cases CCLT Reporting Methods

First Appeal Decided. A new CCLT box score will be coming soon.

Author: Tom Baker Date: 07.07.21

First Appeal Decided.  A new CCLT box score will be coming soon.

As every reader of this website already knows, the 8th Circuit has decided the first appeal:  affirming the trial court’s dismissal in Oral Surgeons PC v. Cincinnati Insurance Company.  That prompted us to add a new “outcome” column to the list of appeals on our appeals page.  You can sort based on that column to find cases with decided appeals.  Once there are more than a few appeals decided, we’ll be adding an appeals box score and, potentially, some visuals.  Suggestions for this and other upgrades to this website are welcome.  Send them to cclt@law.upenn.edu.

Categories
CCLT Reporting Methods Unusual cases Virus exclusions

Schleicher and Stebbins Hotels LLC v Starr Surplus Lines

Author: Tom Baker Date: 06.16.21

Schleicher and Stebbins Hotels LLC v Starr Surplus Lines

The recent summary judgement order issued in the Schleicher and Stebbins Hotel case in New Hampshire illustrates one of the limits of the judicial rulings box score on this website.  We fully and accurately code in the CCLT database many complicated insurance programs in which different insurers have different endorsements, but we don’t have the capacity to represent that complexity in the judicial rulings box score displayed on this website.

When there is an order that addresses differences among the insurance policies at issue in a case, we have to choose which policy to use as the basis for representing in the box score whether there is a virus exclusion in the policy.  When that happens, we choose the policy (or policies) that represents the largest share of the coverage at issue.

In Schleicher and Stebbins Hotel, the bulk of the coverage was written on a form of policy that does not contain any reference to “virus.”  That policy includes an endorsement that excludes coverage for physical loss or damage caused by “microorganisms,” a term which is defined to include a number of items, not including the word “virus.”  Not surprisingly (in light of the bedrock insurance law principle of contra proferentem), the New Hampshire trial court held that this microorganism exclusion does not apply to Covid 19 claims. Unlike the other insurer defendants, Axis had issued a policy to the hotel group with an exclusion that does contains a reference to “virus.”  Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment on coverage to the hotel group and against all the insurers except Axis and granted summary judgment to Axis against the hotel group.

Categories
Business Income Cases CCLT Reporting Methods

Ja-Del Inc. SJ Order Vacated and the CCLT Database Updated

Author: Tom Baker Date: 03.18.21

Ja-Del Inc. SJ Order Vacated and the CCLT Database Updated

About a week ago, we learned that the summary judgment order granted in favor of Ja-Del Inc. in Ja-Del Inc v. Zurich American Insurance, 2016-CV11209 (Jackson Cty Circuit Ct, Missouri) (Feb. 4, 2021) had been vacated.  That was a new one for us.  There is nothing “off the rack” about the CCLT database or the CCLT website, so we had to scramble to figure out how to reflect that development.  Simply deleting the earlier Order wasn’t an option, because that Order and the court’s decision to vacate are part of the history of the litigation.  But we didn’t want the Order to continue to appear on the list of on-the-merits Judicial Orders on the website, nor did we want it to count for the box score.  Thanks to Alex Shor, we came up with a solution.  The Order remains in the database, but it no longer appears on the CCLT website.

Please keep us informed of these and other developments, particularly in state court cases.  And please be patient when those developments don’t fit neatly into our database structure.  We’re building this plane while we’re flying it!

Categories
CCLT Reporting Methods

Change in the Judicial Rulings List and Box Score

Author: Tom Baker and Sean Bender Date: 03.01.21

Change in the Judicial Rulings List and Box Score

Now that there are so many judicial rulings, we have discontinued the practice of treating a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as an order.  That practice made sense in the early days of the Tracker, when there were not many rulings.  The case that brought this issue to a head is Tappo of Buffalo, LLC v. Erie Insurance Company, which was transferred to the WDPA Erie MDL court after the magistrate judge assigned to the case in WDNY issued a report and recommendation.  Now that Tappo has been transferred to the MDL court’s docket, it is definitely not accurate (if it ever was) to list that case as having been dismissed without prejudice.   The only other case that this change in our practice affects is South Florida ENT Associates v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, in which an early November report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Torres has not yet been acted upon by Judge Williams.