September 2024 Insurance Update

In this month’s update, we discuss Russian-seized planes, Starbucks-caused traffic jams, a squabble over the use of a family name, a restaurant’s pandemic-based loss, a poorly built house, and whether insurance covers any of these claims.

We begin with the restaurant’s business interruption claim.  There, the California Supreme Court had to decide whether a virus endorsement gave the illusion of coverage.

Staying in California, a trial court discusses the difference between “loss of use” and “loss of property” when an aircraft leasing company can’t get its planes back from Russia.  And the California Court of Appeal considers if a tenant’s losses were caused by an accident when a landlord gave an easement to another that interfered with the tenant’s business.

Moving on, the Seventh Circuit decides whether an insurer can rescind a policy where a family-run garbage business failed to mention a relative’s cease and desist letter when applying for insurance.

And in what surprisingly presented an issue of first impression in Massachusetts, an intermediate appellate considers whether a claim for faulty workmanship constitutes “property damage.”

We hope that you find these cases informative.

Rob Tugander and Greg Mann