Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our California newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 27, 2021, 2:30 PM EDT ) A California federal judge has refused to move a trade show operator's $100 million pandemic loss suit over event cancellations to New York, saying a pair of insurers failed to show that California is an inconvenient venue.
U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney said Wednesday Emerald Holding Inc. is allowed to file suits outside New York, siding with the policyholder that W.R. Berkley Syndicate Ltd. and Great Lakes Insurance SE cannot remove the suit to another jurisdiction.
"The plain language of these provisions indicates that plaintiff may file suit outside of New York," the judge said. "The 2021 policy also permits the insured to choose its preferred forum."
The carriers told the court last month the suit should be sent to New York federal court to decide whether Emerald is covered for trade show events it had to cancel or postpone in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Emerald filed its California federal suit in February, alleging the insurers owe an additional $100 million on top of what they've paid for canceled and postponed events. The trade show operator has held two one-year policies with W.R. Berkley and Great Lakes and accused the carriers of being nonresponsive and obstructive to delay and reduce further payments.
The insurers have argued that the policies said disputes are to be litigated in courts located in New York. Emerald, which is headquartered in New York, won't be deprived of its "day in court," the insurers argued. Most of the trade show operator's witnesses are located in the state, they said.
"Neither the 2020 policy nor the 2021 policy designate New York's courts as the exclusive forum for this dispute," Judge Carney said on Wednesday.
The policy stated clearly that the insurer "will submit to the jurisdiction" of any court within the United States at the request of the policyholder, the judge said. The policy also said the insurer will "abide by the final decision of such a court," he added.
The carriers failed to show that California is an inconvenient location for the suit. Emerald has two offices in California with nearly 100 total employees, and both its 2020 and 2021 insurance policies were issued in California, the judge said.
"Many of plaintiff's witnesses and any relevant physical evidence is likely located in California as well," he added.
Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment on Thursday.
Emerald is represented by Marc D. Halpern, Gwendolyn M. Toczko and Susan P. Welch of Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg LLP.
The insurers are represented by Jamie L. Edmonson, Rhonda J. Tobin and Gerald P. Dwyer Jr. of Robinson & Cole LLP.
The case is Emerald Holding Inc. v. W.R. Berkley Syndicate Ltd. et al., case number 8:21-cv-00340, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
--Editing by Janice Carter Brown.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
