Insured Couldn't Replace Destroyed Warehouse with Apartment Complex, 9th Circuit Confirms
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage…
March 26, 2019 at 05:47 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming a district court's decision, has ruled that an insured could not “replace” his warehouse after it was destroyed by fire with an apartment complex, even though both structures provided rental income.
The Case
After a fire destroyed Farhad Yaghoubi's commercial warehouse, he sought to recover from his insurer, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, the costs he expended in purchasing an apartment complex instead of seeking funds to rebuild the warehouse.
Travelers denied Mr. Yaghoubi's request and he sued Travelers for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment for Travelers, finding that the policy's replacement-cost provision did not authorize reimbursement for the costs of a building that served a different purpose than the insured property.
Mr. Yaghoubi appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the policy conflicted with California Insurance Code Section 2051.5(a)(1), which provides that in the case of property destruction, replacement cost coverage includes “the amount that it would cost the insured to repair, rebuild, or replace the thing lost or injured[.]” He contended that the term “replace” as used within the section did not require that the replacement structure be “used for the same purpose” as the insured structure and, therefore, that the policy's same-use requirement conflicted with Section 2051.5's purpose. Reimbursement should be made, he argued, for any structure he chose to build following the fire.
The Ninth Circuit's Decision
The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
In its decision, the circuit court explained that the statutory language limited reimbursement to costs to repair, rebuild, or replace the property that was lost or injured.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that a replacement structure in this context had to serve the same purpose as the original structure.
That both the insured structure and the new structure provided rental income did “not mean that the two structures served the same function within the meaning of the policy or the statute,” the circuit court concluded.
The case is Yaghoubi v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of America, No. 17-56618 (9th Cir. March 22, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Farhad Yaghoubi, Plaintiff – Appellant: Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, Esquire, Attorney, The Ehrlich Law Firm, Claremont, CA; Brian S. Kabateck, Attorney, Kabateck Brown & Kellner, Llp, Los Angeles, CA. For Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Defendant – Appellee: Aaron C. Agness, Weston & McElvain LLP, El Segundo, CA.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readFormer CVS Exec Faces Trade Secrets Suit for Allegedly Helping Chickasaw Nation Case
3 minute readFacing a Shrinking Talent Pool, Insurance Defense Firms Are Fighting to Add Attorneys
6 minute readVirus Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover Restaurant's COVID Closure, California Supreme Court Says
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250