Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Argument That Policy Covered Loss of Full Use of Premises Due to COVID-19-Related Shutdowns and Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.

Family Tacos, LLC v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.

Plaintiff Fails to Convince the Court That Physical Loss or Physical Damage Has Occurred; Virus Clause Applies and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Is Granted

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.

Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.

Court Says Plaintiff Fails to State Plausible Claim to Relief for COVID-19-Related Losses but Allows Amendment of Complaint

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.

Graspa Consulting v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court dismisses plaintiff’s (a restaurant chain owner/operator) claims against insurance company; plaintiffs did not incur (nor did it assert) physical damages to premises as required by the terms of the insurance policy.

In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for COVID-19-Related Losses

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court dismisses plaintiff’s (a restaurant chain owner/operator) claims against insurance company; plaintiffs did not incur (nor did it assert) physical damages to premises as required by the terms of the insurance policy.

Real Hosp., LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted a motion by the defendant insurance company to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs did not argue that they sustained a physical loss, and coverage would have been denied nevertheless by the virus exemption.

In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Plaintiffs Did Not Argue Physical Loss and Virus Exemption Applies

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted a motion by the defendant insurance company to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs did not argue that they sustained a physical loss, and coverage would have been denied nevertheless by the virus exemption.

Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch.

D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.

Court Says Restaurants Fail to Meet Requirements for COVID-19-Related Business Interruption Coverage

D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.

Raley v. Brinkman

In LLC member buyout dispute, the Court of Appeals finds the term “fair value” does not contemplate the use of shareholder-level discounts. However, tax affecting is relevant evidence when determining the going-concern value of subject S corp. Trial court must consider evidence on tax affecting.

Tennessee Appeals Court Clarifies Use of Discounts and Tax Affecting in Court-Ordered LLC Buyout

In LLC member buyout dispute, the Court of Appeals finds the term “fair value” does not contemplate the use of shareholder-level discounts. However, tax affecting is relevant evidence when determining the going-concern value of subject S corp. Trial court must consider evidence on tax affecting.

Defendants’ Force Majeure Defense Related to Hurricane Devastation Does Not Excuse Breach of Contract

In rent payment dispute, court rejects defendant restaurant’s force majeure claim that devastating hurricane was act of God that interfered with restaurant’s use of property and excused performance where lease did not contain force majeure provision and rent payments stopped before storm.

Bayou Place Limited Partnership v. Alleppo’s Grill, Inc.

In rent payment dispute, court rejects defendant restaurant’s force majeure claim that devastating hurricane was act of God that interfered with restaurant’s use of property and excused performance where lease did not contain force majeure provision and rent payments stopped before storm.

In re Panera Bread Company

In appraisal action involving sale of public company, court says sale process had “objective indicia of reliability,” justifying use of deal price for fair value determination; synergy deduction is appropriate to account for value from anticipated cost and tax-related savings due to merger.

Court Considers Deal Price Persuasive Indicator of Fair Value and Approves Synergy Deduction

In appraisal action involving sale of public company, court says sale process had “objective indicia of reliability,” justifying use of deal price for fair value determination; synergy deduction is appropriate to account for value from anticipated cost and tax-related savings due to merger.

Arizona Court Says Owner’s Goodwill in Restaurants Represents Community Asset

Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision to give wife portion of value of goodwill in two restaurants husband set up with new partner during separation, where restaurants carried husband’s name and featured recipes he had developed during the marriage; goodwill is a community asset.

Jimenez v. Jimenez

Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision to give wife portion of value of goodwill in two restaurants husband set up with new partner during separation, where restaurants carried husband’s name and featured recipes he had developed during the marriage; goodwill is a community asset.

Lack of Marketability a Factor in Valuing Minority Interest

In buyout case, calculation of fair value of minority shareholder’s interest in restaurant turns on forensic accountant’s credit/cash ratio analysis; New York trial court says law recognizes lack of marketability as a factor in valuing closely held corpor ...

Cortes v. 3A N. Park Ave. Rest Corp.

In buyout case, calculation of fair value of minority shareholder’s interest in restaurant turns on forensic accountant’s credit/cash ratio analysis; New York trial court says law recognizes lack of marketability as a factor in valuing closely held corpor ...

Valuation Confirms Salability of ‘Unique’ Restaurant’s Goodwill

State high court rejects per se extension of personal goodwill concept to nonprofessional businesses and finds in case at issue restaurant’s valuation indicates goodwill is marketable and thus corporate and subject to marital distribution.

Brave v. Brave (II)

State high court rejects per se extension of personal goodwill concept to nonprofessional businesses and finds in case at issue restaurant’s valuation indicates goodwill is marketable and thus corporate and subject to marital distribution.

Can a Restaurant Have Personal Goodwill?

State appellate court finds “professional license goodwill” exception, which treats personal goodwill as professional spouse’s separate property, applies to “unique,” successful restaurant and directs trial court to determine how much of the business’s go ...

1 - 25 of 82 results