NBA Kings win in court at lost game, Bon Jovi concert

of Sacramento Kings 2-5 start on court this season, but things are going well of court. A federal judge recently denied a motion to dismiss filed by a federal court. insurance The company Kings unfairly denies compensating for related losses COVID-19 (new coronavirus infectious disease) Pandemic.

On October 28, Judge Kimberly Muller wrote that insurance contracts are ambiguous and that “one reasonable interpretation of the scope and exclusions of insurance contracts includes:” [the Kings’] insurance claim. She emphasized that under insurance law, “ambiguities are generally resolved in favor of coverage.” Mueller can only grant a motion to dismiss if the complaint lacks a “recognizable legal theory,” she said. Kings’ theory, she found, met that criteria.

The lawsuit, which includes breach of contract and bad faith refusal claims, stems from millions of dollars in lost revenue from the cancellation of various events, including Kings games and Bon Jovi concerts and graduations. . Golden 1 center. The center is operated and managed by another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Sacramento Downtown Arena LLC. The Factory Mutual Insurance Company insured the arena through an “all risks” policy, meaning “all risks of physical loss or damage.”

This seemingly simple definition has become something else entirely when it comes to the losses suffered by the pandemic.

Factory claims the losses were not the result of “physical loss or damage,” as the company sees it, so it is not obligated to pay. Other courts have dismissed similar claims for reasons.

Muller was not convinced. She emphasized that the policy lists “additional coverage for the insured’s physical loss or damage.” It is a term that encompasses the reasonable and necessary costs incurred in responding to a “communicable disease”, defined as “a disease that can be transmitted from person to person”. It affects humans through direct or indirect contact with affected individuals or personal secretions. Muller has determined that a reasonable interpretation of the policy is that the presence of an epidemic counts as “physical loss or damage.” She added that the case cited by Factory is not relevant. This is because nothing pertinent to the contagious disease clause description is definitely included in the definition of insured physical loss or damage.

The factory also claims the policy includes a contamination exclusion, which exempts the company from any payment obligations for “cannot use or occupy property.” However, Muller reasoned that this exclusion does not apply when the policy is read as “defining the existence of an ‘epidemic’ as an unexcluded ‘physical injury’.” It completely excludes because it leaves “foreign matter, impurities, contaminants, noxious substances, poisons, toxins, mold and mildew contamination”.

The Kings aren’t the first NBA team in California to beat an insurance company during the dismissal petition stage. claim “Permanent presence” of the virus “physically altered” at the Arena where the Lakers practice and at the UCLA Health Training Center. The judge ruled that the dismissal was unjust because the policy did not define “direct physical loss or damage” and the ambiguity favored the insured over the insurer.

(This article has an updated headline and the team’s record in the first paragraph.)

Leave a Comment