Is a party’s loss of use of a leasehold or other interest in real property considered “property damage” within the meaning of a comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy? Two recent cases go in different directions on this point.
The starting point is the CGL’s Coverage A which typically provides coverage for “bodily injury and property damage liability”. In turn, “property damage” is typically defined to include the “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured”. The key question addressed by the following cases is whether a party’s leasehold or other interest in real property constitutes “tangible property”.
In Thee Sombrero v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 28 Cal.App.5th 729 (2018) there was a fatal shooting at a nightclub which resulted in the revocation of a conditional use permit to operate the premises as a nightclub. That CUP was replaced with a modified CUP which provided that the property could be operated only as a banquet hall.
In the underlying liability action, the nightclub owner (Thee Sombrero) had brought suit against its former security company for negligence. In that suit, the nightclub owner asserted that the security company’s negligence caused the shooting, which in turn caused a diminution in the value of the property. The nightclub owner obtained a default judgment against the security company.
The security company was insured under a CGL policy issued by Scottsdale. Following the security company’s default in the underlying liability action, the nightclub owner brought a direct action against Scottsdale under Ins. Code section 11580(b)(2) in which it sought to recover damages representing the diminution in the value of the property.
Finding that the nightclub owner’s claim for damages represented “economic loss [that] is not lost use of tangible property”, the trial court granted Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed.
The Court of Appeal rejected the notion that the underlying injury was solely for economic loss. In this regard, the Court noted that “[a] building is tangible. Dirt is tangible. Hence, a lessee in possession has a tangible property interest in the leased premises”. In so reasoning, the Court distinguished an earlier appellate decision, Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. vs. Cen-Fed, Ltd., 148 Cal. App. 4th 976 (2007), in which the Court determined that a bank’s claim that it was deprived of use of leased space due to its landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises “rested entirely on [the landlord’s] alleged breach of the lease and the resulting economic damage”.
The Thee Sombrero court acknowledged that “losses that are exclusively economic, without any accompanying physical damage or loss of use of tangible property, do not constitute not constitute property damage” (emphasis in original). But since “dirt is tangible”, the Court reasoned that the modified CUP’s restrictions on the use of the property satisfied the requirement that the nightclub owner had suffered a “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured”.
Significantly, the Court in Thee Sombrero held that “loss of use” in the CGL context “means the loss of any significant use of the premises, not the total loss of all uses” (emphasis in original) Thus, the diminished use to which the nightclub premises had been restricted under the modified CUP satisfied the policy’s “loss of use” benchmark. See also Modern Equipment Co. vs. Continental Western Ins. Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2004) (diminished use of warehouse due to collapse of several sections of storage racks constituted property damage).
Thee Sombrero was followed by Conway v. Northfield Ins. Co., 399 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D.Cal. 2019). There the lessee of commercial restaurant space brought an action against her commercial landlord (Conway) for various acts of interference which ultimately resulted in the tenant having to close her business after many years of operation. In essence, the tenant asserted that the landlord’s actions had deprived her of the ability to use the restaurant premises.
Conway tendered the suit to his liability carrier (Northfield) which declined to provide a defense in respect to the tenant’s suit. Conway then sued Northfield, alleging, among other things, that the tenant’s allegation of deprivation of use of the restaurant space satisfied the “property damage” requirement under the policy.
The Court in Conway ultimately found coverage for the landlord, but not on the ground that the tenant’s allegation of deprivation of use of the restaurant space rose to the level of “property damage” under the policy. Characterizing the “dirt is tangible” language from the Thee Sombrero decision as dictum, the Court cited the decision in Golden Eagle to support its view that leaseholds do not constitute tangible property. On this basis the Court held that the tenant’s action did not raise a potential claim for “loss of use of tangible property” arising out of the tenant’s inability to use the restaurant premises. See also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Darke, 424 F.Supp.3d 638 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Conway with approval on this point).
But the Court in Conway nevertheless found coverage for the tenant’s suit on the theory that the tenant’s suit involved a potential claim for loss of use of the tenant’s own property, including equipment, fixtures, tables and chairs, in the operation of the restaurant. In so holding the Court cited Riverbank Holding Co., LLC v. N. H. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2119046, at * 8 (E.D. Cal. 2012) for the proposition that a loss of use of a tenant improvement does meet the requirement of “loss of use of tangible property”, thereby triggering coverage under the CGL policy.
It is difficult to reconcile Thee Sombrero with Conway and Darke and authoritative guidance will have to await a decision from the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, the debate on this point between policyholders and insurance carriers will continue.
This article was originally published in the Daily Journal. View the original post here.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014