Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

L&L Logistics & Warehousing Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.

L&L Logistics & Warehousing Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division

April 13, 2021, Decided; April 13, 2021, Filed

Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-324

Opinion

 [*301]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT ("Renewed Motion to Dismiss") (ECF No. 48). Defendant Evanston Insurance Company1 ("Evanston") requests that Plaintiff L&L Logistics and Warehousing Inc. d/b/a L&L Trucking's ("L&L's") FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 13) [**2]  be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Renewed Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statement of Facts

At all relevant times, L&L, a California corporation, had an insurance policy (the "Policy") with Evanston Insurance, an insurance carrier headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia. FAC ¶¶ 3, 9, ECF No. 13. The Policy was based on "language that is essentially standardized language adopted from and/or developed by the ISO,"2 and it covered certain business losses. FAC ¶¶ 11, 21, ECF No. 13.

Between March 4, 2020 - March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state of California enacted a series of restrictions on public gatherings, concluding with a stay-at-home order limiting the ability of non-essential businesses to function normally. FAC ¶¶ 42-45, ECF No. 13.

Like many businesses around the world, "[i]n light of the Coronavirus global pandemic and state and local orders mandating that all non-essential in store businesses must shut down on March 16, 2020, Plaintiff's trucking company has suffered business loss." FAC ¶ 2, ECF No. 13. L&L takes the position that its damages were caused both by the contamination of COVID-19 [**3]  on the covered premises and the California COVID-19 orders. See FAC ¶¶ 54-60, ECF No. 13; see also March 24 Hearing Tr.

L&L is now seeking a declaratory judgment that would essentially find that L&L is entitled to Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority coverage under the Policy. See FAC at 13, ECF No. 13. Evanston, in turn, filed a counterclaim which essentially seeks declaratory judgment of the exact opposite. Countercl. at 11, ECF No. 11. Evanston now seeks to have L&L's First Amended Complaint dismissed for the same reasons outlined in the Counterclaim (i.e., L&L's claim is not covered under the Policy).3

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

533 F. Supp. 3d 299 *; 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71797 **; 2021 WL 1396280

L&L LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSING INC. DBA L&L TRUCKING, Plaintiff, v. EVANSTON INSURANCE CO., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

Coverage, Virus, civil authority, Pathogen, Organic, cause of loss, extra expense, business income, ambiguous, described premises, amended complaint, physical loss, premises, parties, insurance policy, property damage, insurer, endorsement, Bacteria, pandemic, orders, damaged property, replacement, MEMORANDUM, indirectly, suspension, induces, losses, personal property, provide coverage

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Appeals, Standards of Review, Questions of Fact & Law, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Question of Law, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Intent, Entire Contract, Technical Constructions & Meanings, Plain Language, Ambiguous Terms, Construction Against Insurers, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Exclusions, Burdens of Proof, Exclusions, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Adhesion Contracts, Parol Evidence, Extrinsic Evidence