Camp 1382 LLC v. Lancer Insurance Company
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-03336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Camp 1382 LLC v. Lancer Insurance Co., Judge Abrams granted the parties’ joint request to stay a COVID-19 business-interruption coverage case pending a multidistrict-litigation decision.
Camp 1382 LLC, Lancer Insurance Company, and the proposed class of Lancer-insured businesses described in the filing.
What happened
Camp 1382 LLC, doing business as Campagnola Restaurant, brought a proposed class action concerning business-interruption insurance claims that Lancer Insurance Company denied after government stay-at-home orders closed businesses.
The parties said the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was considering whether to transfer and combine related COVID-19 business-interruption insurance cases. They jointly asked the court to pause this case while the panel considered that issue.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the request, stayed the action, and adjourned the initial conference without setting a new date. The parties must jointly update the court within one week after the panel’s decision.
The detailed version
- Camp 1382 LLC v. Lancer Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-03336
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 26, 2020
Background
The supplied filing describes a proposed class action brought by Camp 1382 LLC, doing business as Campagnola Restaurant, against Lancer Insurance Company. The proposed class consists of Lancer-insured businesses that closed because of government stay-at-home orders and whose business-interruption coverage claims were denied.
Lancer’s stated defenses include that the policies do not cover the claimed business-income losses; the insureds did not suffer the required direct physical loss of or damage to property; closure orders were not a covered cause of loss; and virus, ordinance-or-law, governmental-authority, and other exclusions bar coverage. Lancer also disputed coverage under the policies’ civil-authority provisions.
Jurisdiction and Related Proceedings
The plaintiff said federal jurisdiction arose under the Class Action Fairness Act. Lancer disputed whether the plaintiff or proposed class members could establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and asserted that exceptions to federal jurisdiction might apply.
The parties reported that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was considering competing requests to transfer and combine COVID-19-related business-interruption insurance cases in another federal district. They said this action was related to that proceeding. No discovery or settlement discussions had occurred.
Request and Ruling
The parties jointly requested a stay, including additional time for Lancer to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided where the related cases would proceed.
The court granted the request. The action was stayed, and the parties were ordered to file a joint letter within one week after the panel’s decision updating the court about the case, including whether they sought to extend the stay. The initial conference scheduled for June 12, 2020, was adjourned without setting a new date. The order did not decide the insurance-coverage or jurisdictional issues.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.