A Superior Court Judge in Durham County, North Carolina recently ruled in favor of a number of restaurants in their collective action against Cincinnati Insurance for loss of business income due to the Covid-19 pandemic in a case captioned North State Deli, LLC, et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20-CVS-02569. In a departure from courts across the country, the presiding judge held that government orders restricting the policyholders’ use of their restaurants constituted “direct physical loss” thus triggering the policies’ Business Income coverage. The court reasoned that the phrase “direct physical loss” “includes the inability to utilize or possess something in the real, material, or bodily world, resulting from a given cause with the intervention of other conditions” and therefore “describes the scenario where business owners…lose the full range of rights and advantages of using or accessing their business property.”...

In a much anticipated decision, California’s highest court held this week that a statutory penalty of $500 for Patients’ Bill of Rights violation claims brought by residents of skilled nursing and intermediate care facilities will be capped at $500 per cause of action, rather than by each individual regulatory violation. In doing so, the high court reversed the underlying decision which involved an award of the statutory penalty to each of 382 alleged separate violations. This decision is highly favorable to the skilled nursing industry given that an affirmative ruling would have likely resulted in a new influx of litigation and would have increased the potential exposure....

In California, under a rule premised on the theory of ostensible agency, a hospital may be liable for the negligence of physicians on the staff, even when such physicians are in fact independent contractors, unless the hospital has clearly notified the patient that the treating physicians are not hospital employees and there is no reason to believe the patient was unable to understand or act on the information. The required elements of ostensible agency are: "(1) conduct by the hospital that would cause a reasonable person to believe that there was an agency relationship and (2) reliance on that apparent agency relationship by the plaintiff." (Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1457.) On June 1, 2020, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, decided the case of Wicks, et al. v. Antelope Valley Healthcare District. The court held, among other holdings, that the evidence established in the case conclusively established that the emergency room physicians were not the ostensible agents of the hospital as a matter of law....