Duane Morris LLP is pleased to announced that Chambers USA has recognized Duane Morris Insurance group and attorneys.
Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer
Philip R. Matthews, Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer
Max H. Stern, Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer
Philip R. Matthews, Insurance: Insurer
Max H. Stern, Insurance: Insurer
Steven Burgess Davis, Insurance
Insurance policies frequently contain choice-of-law provisions providing that their interpretation is subject to the law of a particular jurisdiction. Thus, if a policy’s choice-of-law provision requires that the policy be interpreted in accordance with New York law, then the policy should be interpreted in accordance with New York law. That seemingly self-evident proposition was recently upheld by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 23 Civ. 8844 (KPF), 2025 WL 764131 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025).
But, according to the insured, Cajun Conti, the proposition is not self-evident at all. This is because the insurance policy containing the New York choice-of-law provision was issued to Cajun Conti in Louisiana, and, under the Louisiana Insurance Code, foreign choice-of-law provisions are void, at least for policies issued in Louisiana and subject to approval by the Louisiana Department of Insurance. See La. Rev. Stat. § 22:868.
The Southern District, however, rejected Cajun Conti’s invocation of the Louisiana statute, and enforced the parties’ contractual commitment to be bound by New York law. Cajun Conti, 2025 WL 764131, at *4-*7. The Court did so for several reasons.
First, Section 5-1401 of New York’s General Obligations Law provides that any contract governing transactions in excess of $250,000 containing a New York choice-of-law provision is enforceable in New York. Indeed, New York’s highest court has held that a provision subject to Section 5-1401 obviates the need for any further conflicts-of-law analysis. The provision is presumptively enforceable. Cajun Conti, 2025 WL 764131, at *4.
Second, the Cajun Conti court noted that, even in the absence of Section 5-1401, New York courts should enforce choice-of-law provisions as a matter of contract interpretation. To that end, the court cited a recent decision from New York’s Court of Appeals holding that “when the parties have chosen New York law, a court may not contravene that choice through common-law conflicts analysis.” Cajun Conti, 2025 WL 764131, at *5 (citing Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 41 N.Y.3d 462, 476 (2024)).
Third, the Cajun Conti court rejected a “public policy” exception to the foregoing rules, finding no basis for such an exception in controlling New York law. Cajun Conti, 2025 WL 764131, at *6.
Based on the foregoing principles of New York law, the Cajun Conti court concluded that the Louisiana statute purporting to void the contract provision is ultimately irrelevant.
The takeaway is that courts in New York should apply New York law to insurance policies requiring the application of New York law, irrespective of alleged public policy concerns arising from contrary law of the insureds’ home state. This rule provides certainty to the parties concerning their rights and obligations and ensures that their contractual intent will be upheld.
By Max Stern, Terrance Evans, Todd Norris and Jessica La Londe
On August 8, 2024, in a case entitled John’s Grill v. The Harford Financial Services Group, No. S278481, the Supreme Court of California questioned the existence of the “so-called” illusory coverage doctrine under California law, as it concluded that a policyholder had, in any event, failed to satisfy its foundational elements.
John’s Grill suffered substantial losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its insurer denied coverage on various grounds including that the loss or damage claimed by John’s Grill did not fall within the insurance policy’s “Limited Fungi, Bacteria or Virus Coverage” endorsement. That endorsement generally excludes coverage for any virus-related loss or damage that the policy would otherwise provide, but it extends coverage for virus-related loss or damage if the virus was the result of certain specified causes of loss, including windstorms, water damage, vandalism, and explosion.
John’s Grill acknowledged that it could not meet the latter specified cause of loss limitation. Instead, it contended the limitation was unenforceable because it rendered the policy’s promise of virus-related coverage illusory. The Court of Appeal below agreed, and allowed John’s Grill’s claims for virus-related losses or damage to proceed.
Relying on “long-settled principles of contract interpretation,” the Supreme Court of California reversed, concluding that the “plain meaning of the policy govern[ed].” The Court stated that it “has never recognized an illusory coverage doctrine as such,” and rejected “the so-called illusory coverage doctrine [as articulated by John’s Grill],” stating that it “does not appear in our precedents.”
The Court went on to explain that even assuming some version of the doctrine did exist under California law, there were two hurdles John’s Grill would still need to clear before it could establish coverage, and it had not cleared either one in this case. First, in such a case, an insured would have to “make a foundational showing that it had a reasonable expectation that the policy would cover the insured’s claimed loss or damage.” The Court declared that “[s]uch a reasonable expectation of coverage is necessary under any assumed version of the doctrine.” Here, the Court concluded that based on the policy language limiting coverage to certain causes, John’s Grill could not have an objectively reasonable expectation the policy would provide coverage for all virus-related loss or damage, regardless of the cause. Second, the Court explained that even accepting John’s Grill’s articulation of the doctrine, it still could not demonstrate that coverage was illusory. The Court noted that restaurants handle both raw and cooked food, which could be contaminated by a virus and that “John’s Grill has not shown that the prospect of such contamination by water damage or other specified cause of loss is so unrealistic as to render the promised coverage illusory.” According to the Court, it is for the insured to consider the likelihood of benefiting from the policy’s limited virus coverage when obtaining coverage.
By Max H. Stern and Holden Benon
Late last week, the California Court of Appeal issued another COVID-19 business interruption decision reminding us that creative arguments do not win the day for policyholders in California. The true facts are decisive.
In Best Rest Motel, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co., No. D079927, 2023 WL 2198660 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023), the court upheld a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, reasoning the policyholder could not show that its loss of business income was caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to property,” within the meaning of its commercial multi-peril insurance policy.
The policyholder, San Diego-based Best Rest Motel, Inc. argued that the presence of virus-infected droplets caused physical loss or damage rendering its property incapable of safely providing lodging to guests. Readers familiar with these issues may recognize this as an attempt to plead facts that fall within the “hypothetical scenario” posited in dicta by the court in Inns-by-the-Sea.
By: Max H. Stern & Holden Benon
Recently, we began to see real decisions being made by the appellate courts on COVID-19 Business Interruption issues. The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have established a uniformly favorable trend for insurance carriers – these courts have affirmed the district court decisions that have ruled in favor of the insurers, and in one case, the Sixth Circuit vacated a district court’s decision that ruled in favor of the policyholder. Since our original blog post on this issue in October, this trend continued in December with a Tenth Circuit decision.
Ninth Circuit
Starting with the Ninth Circuit (where Duane Morris’ insurance group maintains a strong presence), carriers have enjoyed successful outcomes in a trio of much-anticipated decisions. In Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 20-16858, 2021 WL 4486509, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021) (applying California law), Mudpie, a San Francisco-based children’s store, brought a proposed class action asserting breach of contract and bad faith against its property insurance carrier. As in many COVID-19 business interruption cases, the carrier had denied its insured “Business Income” and “Extra Expense” coverage in 2020, after government authorities issued public health orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at *2. (For more background on business interruption insurance, please refer to one of our earlier blog posts on this topic.)
Mudpie made the argument that its inability to use its premises amounted to “direct physical loss or damage to” its property, sufficient to bring its claim within the scope of the policy’s business interruption coverage. Id. The court rejected this argument, however, reasoning that the phrase “direct physical loss of or damage to” requires some kind of physical alteration to the property in question. Id. at *5. The court also held that the policy’s virus exclusion bars coverage for the insured’s claims. Id. at *7. As many policyholders have tried arguing, Mudpie claimed that its losses were not subject to the policy’s virus exclusion because its losses were caused not directly by the virus, but by stay-at-home orders that restricted the insured’s use of its property. But the court didn’t buy this argument because Mudpie failed to meet the “efficient proximate cause” test. Id. (“Mudpie does not plausibly allege that ‘the efficient cause,’ i.e., the one that set others in motion was anything other than the spread of the virus throughout California, or that the virus was merely a remote cause of its losses.”) (internal citation omitted). In the end, the court affirmed the district court’s decision ruling in favor of the insurer. Id. at *7.
By Max H. Stern and Holden Benon
The first California state appellate decision on COVID-19 Business Interruption coverage is now in the books, and it’s one more victory for insurers. In The Inns by the Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. D079036 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. 1, Nov. 15, 2021), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District found there was no coverage, notwithstanding the absence of a virus exclusion in the relevant policy. The court’s 36-page opinion provides a thorough and careful analysis of several important COVID-19-related business interruption issues, some highlights of which we summarize below.
Inns-by-the Sea operates lodges in the California coastal communities of Carmel and Half Moon Bay. In March of 2020, Inns closed its facilities in response to shutdown orders issued by Monterey and San Mateo counties. Then, Inns made a claim under its property insurance policy for its claimed loss of business income caused by the pandemic. (For more background on business interruption insurance, refer to one of our earlier blog posts on this topic.) Inns’ insurer denied coverage, and Inns filed suit in Monterey Superior Court.
The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Two, in 21st Century Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Tapia), ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (No. E062244, September 10, 2015), recently confirmed some of the important protections for defending insurers against stipulated judgments that were established in the Hamilton and Safeco decisions and limited the application of other decisions that have been relied on by claimants and policyholders seeking to get around the Hamilton rule against bad faith actions premised on such stipulated judgments. Continue reading “Protections Against Defended Policyholder Manufacturing Bad Faith Case Via Stipulated Judgment Confirmed By California Court”
Today the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court. In a unanimous decision, authored by the Chief Justice, the Court rejected the enforceability of “consent to assignment” clauses as a bar to coverage when the loss pre-dates the assignment, based on California Insurance Code section 520, and overruled its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934.
Duane Morris is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has once again singled out the success of the firm’s Insurance practice group. Chambers and Partners’ annual survey of the American legal profession consistently ranks Duane Morris among national leaders in insurance law and in 2015 ranked the firm in its top five for representation of Insurers in Insurance Dispute Resolution. Chambers has praised the group as being “A full-service insurance practice that has unparalleled bench strength at the highest level of insurance work,” and that it “Possesses the expertise to assist on all coverage matters across a huge range of arenas, as well as reinsurance, bad faith and policy drafting advice.” Nationally, Chambers recognized practitioners Philip Matthews, Max Stern and Thomas Newman for their work and contributions and in California, Andrew Gordon, Ray Wong and Richard Seabolt have also been recognized.
A California Court of Appeal has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the insurer on defense and indemnity with respect to claims that arose from circumstances known to the policyholder when it applied for professional liability insurance but that were not disclosed to the insurer in the application. Crown Capital Securities, L.P. v. Endurance American Specialty Ins. Co. (Cal.Ct.App, 2d Dist., Div. 5, 4/10/15). Because the application stated that a claim is excluded from coverage if arising from any undisclosed circumstance that was required to be disclosed in response to a question asked, and the application requested disclosure of circumstances that may result in a claim, the policyholder was not entitled to coverage for claims arising from the known but undisclosed circumstance.
