1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PAUL G. CAREY, CA State Bar No. 105357 VALERIE R. PERDUE, CA State Bar No. 278322 DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY A Professional Corporation 1455 First Street, Ste. 301 Napa, California 94559 Telephone: (707) 252-7122 Facsimile: (707) 255-6876 John W. Houghtaling, II, LA State Bar No. 25099 (pending admission pro hac vice) Jennifer Perez, LA State Bar No. 38370 (pending admission pro hac vice) GAUTHIER MURPHY & HOUGHTALING LLC 3500 North Hullen Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Telephone: (504) 456-8600 Facsimile: (504) 456-8624 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF NAPA 13 14 15 16 17 French Laundry Partners, LP dba The French Laundry, a limited partnership; KRM, Inc. dba Thomas Keller Restaurant Group, a Corporation; Yountville Food Emporium, LLC dba Bouchon Bistro, a limited liability company, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs, vs. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; KAREN RELUCIO, an individual, and; DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants. 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 Plaintiffs French Laundry Partners, LP dba The French Laundry; KRM, Inc., dba Thomas 2 Keller Restaurant Group; Yountville Food Emporium, LLC dba Bouchon Bistro; (collectively 3 “plaintiffs”), bring this Complaint, alleging against Defendants Hartford Fire Insurance Company; 4 Trumbull Insurance Company; Karen Relucio, and DOES 1 through 25 (“Defendants”) as follows: 5 PARTIES 6 1. At all relevant times, French Laundry Partners, LP dba French Laundry (“French 7 Laundry”), is a Limited Partnership, authorized to do business and doing business in the State of 8 California, County of Napa. French Laundry owns, operates, manages, and/or controls the 9 restaurant The French Laundry. 10 2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff KRM Inc. dba Thomas Keller Restaurant Group 11 (“KRM”), is a Corporation, authorized to do business and doing business in the State of California, 12 County of Napa. KRM is the managing entity for the French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, 13 plaintiffs herein. 14 3. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Yountville Food Emporium, LLC dba Bouchon 15 Bistro (“Bouchon”) is a Limited Liability Company, authorized to do business and doing business 16 in the State of California, County of Napa. Bouchon owns, operates, manages and/or controls the 17 restaurant Bouchon Bistro. 18 4. At all relevant times, Defendants Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, 19 and Trumbull Insurance Company, a corporation (collectively “HARTFORD DEFENDANTS”) 20 are corporations doing business in the County of Napa, State of California, subscribing to Policy 21 Number 72UUNHD8373K2 issued to the plaintiffs for the period of July 8, 2019 through July 8, 22 2020. HARTFORD DEFENDANTS are transacting the business of insurance in the state of 23 California and the basis of this suit arises out of such conduct. 24 25 5. who is being named in her official capacity as the Napa County Health Officer. 26 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27 28 At all relevant times, Defendant KAREN RELUCIO (“RELUCIO”) is an individual 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged herein. /// -1COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 2 7. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and/or omissions complained of took place, in whole or in part, within the venue of this Court. 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4 8. On or about July 8, 2019, HARTFORD DEFENDANTS entered into a contract of 5 insurance with the plaintiffs, whereby plaintiffs agreed to make payments to HARTFORD 6 DEFENDANTS in exchange for HARTFORD DEFENDANTS’ promise to indemnify the 7 plaintiffs for losses including, but not limited to, business income losses at several properties 8 (hereinafter “Insured Properties”). 9 9. The Insured Properties include two different prominent restaurants located in Napa 10 Valley County, The French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, which are owned, leased by, managed, 11 and/or controlled by the plaintiffs. 12 10. The French Laundry is a world-renowned, three-Michelin-starred restaurant which 13 serves Chef’s daily nine-course tasting menu and nine-course vegetable tasting menu made with 14 the finest quality ingredients available. The restaurant is open all three hundred and sixty-five days 15 of the year between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. from Monday through Thursday, and from 16 11:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. on Friday to Sunday. The French Laundry is 17 located at 6640 Washington Street, Yountville, California 94599. This address is listed as an 18 Insured Property under the Policy. 19 11. Bouchon Bistro is a one-star rating recipient from the France-based Michelin Guide 20 San Francisco, Bay Area & Wine Country, a three-and-a-half star rating from the Santa Rosa Press 21 Democrat, as well as a three star rating from the San Francisco Chronicle. Bouchon’s seasonal 22 menu and raw bar selections change throughout the year, while staples like roast chicken, leg of 23 lamb, and trout amandine remain as consistent, year-round favorites. The restaurant is open all 24 three hundred and sixty-five days of the year. Bouchon Bistro is located at 6534 Washington 25 Street, Yountville, California 94599. This address is listed as an Insured Property under the Policy. 26 12. The Insured Properties are covered under a policy issued by the HARTFORD 27 DEFENDANTS with policy number believed to be 72UUNHD8373K2 (hereinafter “policy”). 28 /// -2COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 13. The policy is currently in full effect, providing property, business personal property, 2 business income and extra expense, and additional coverages between the period of July 8, 2019 3 through July 8, 2020. 4 14. Plaintiffs faithfully paid policy premiums to HARTFORD DEFENDANTS, 5 specifically to provide additional coverages under The Property Choice Business Income and Extra 6 Expense Form in the event of business closures by order of Civil Authority. 7 15. Under the policy, insurance is extended to apply to the actual loss of business 8 income sustained and the actual, necessary and reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to 9 the scheduled premises is specifically prohibited by order of civil authority as the direct result of a 10 covered cause of loss to property in the immediate area of plaintiffs’ scheduled premises. This 11 additional coverage is identified as coverage under “Civil Authority.” 12 16. The policy is an all-risk policy, insofar as it provides that covered causes of loss 13 under the policy means direct physical loss or direct physical damage unless the loss is specifically 14 excluded or limited in the policy. 15 16 17. The policy’s Property Choice Deluxe Form specifically extends coverage to direct physical loss or damage caused by virus. 17 18. Based on information and belief, the HARTFORD DEFENDANTS have accepted 18 the policy premiums with no intention of providing any coverage under the Property Choice 19 Deluxe Form or the Civil Authority extension due to a loss and shutdown from a virus pandemic. 20 19. While some rogue media outlets have called the 2019-2020 Coronavirus an 21 exaggerated mass hysteria that will unlikely create significant physical damage, the scientific 22 community, and those personally affected by the virus, recognize the Coronavirus as a cause of real 23 physical loss and damage. 24 20. The global Coronavirus pandemic is exacerbated by the fact that the deadly virus 25 physically infects and stays on surfaces of objects or materials, “fomites,” for up to twenty-eight 26 days. 27 28 21. China, Italy, France, and Spain have implemented the cleaning and fumigating of public areas prior to allowing them to re-open publicly due to the intrusion of microbials. -3COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 22. On March 18, 2020, the health officer of Napa County, Defendant Karen Relucio, 2 issued an order directing all individuals living in the county to stay at home except that they may 3 leave to provide or receive certain essential services or engage in certain essential activities (“The 4 Order”). The Order further requires all non-essential businesses located within the County to 5 “cease all activities at facilities located within the County, except Minimum Basic Operations 6 […].” 7 23. The Order specifically states that it is being issued based on evidence of physical 8 damage to property. The property that is damaged is in the immediate area of the Insured 9 Properties. 10 24. Except for delivery or takeout, the Order does not specifically exempt restaurants 11 and has caused a shutdown of plaintiffs’ business operations. As a direct and proximate result of 12 this Order, access to the Insured Properties has been specifically prohibited. 13 14 15 25. As a further direct and proximate result of the Order, plaintiffs have been forced to furlough over 300 employees. 26. The virus is physically impacting public and private property, and physical spaces in 16 cities around the world and the United States. Any effort by the HARTFORD DEFENDANTS to 17 deny the reality that the virus causes physical loss and damage would constitute a false and 18 potentially fraudulent misrepresentation that could endanger policyholders and the public. 19 27. A declaratory judgment determining that the coverage provided under the policy 20 will prevent the plaintiffs from being left without vital coverage acquired to ensure the survival of 21 their businesses due to the shutdown caused by the civil authorities’ response is necessary. As a 22 result of this order, plaintiffs have incurred, and continue to incur, a substantial loss of business 23 income and additional expenses covered under the policy. 24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 25 DECLARATORY RELIEF 26 (Against All Defendants and DOES 1 to 25) 27 28 28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference into this cause of action each and every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this Complaint. -4COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 2 29. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 et seq., the court may declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. 3 30. An actual controversy has arisen between plaintiffs and the HARTFORD 4 DEFENDANTS as to the rights, duties, responsibilities and obligations of the parties in that 5 Plaintiffs contend and, on information and belief, the HARTFORD DEFENDANTS dispute and 6 deny, that: (1) the Order by Karen Relucio, in her official capacity, constitutes a prohibition of 7 access to plaintiffs’ Insured Premises; (2) the prohibition of access by the Order is specifically 8 prohibited access as defined in the Policy; (3) the Order triggers coverage because the policy does 9 not include an exclusion for a viral pandemic and actually extends coverage for loss or damage due 10 to virus; and (4) the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any current and future civil authority 11 closures of restaurants in Napa County due to physical loss or damage from the Coronavirus under 12 the Civil Authority coverage parameters and the policy provides business income coverage in the 13 event that Coronavirus has caused a loss or damage at the insured premises or immediate area of 14 the insured premises. Resolution of the duties, responsibilities and obligation of the parties is 15 necessary as no adequate remedy at law exists and a declaration of the Court is needed to resolve 16 the dispute and controversy. 17 18 31. Plaintiffs seek a Declaratory Judgement to determine whether the Order constitutes a prohibition of access to plaintiffs’ Insured Premises by a Civil Authority as defined in the Policy. 19 32. Plaintiffs further seek a Declaratory Judgement to affirm that the Order triggers 20 coverage because the policy does not include an exclusion for a viral pandemic and actually 21 extends coverage for loss or damage due to virus. 22 33. Plaintiffs further seek a Declaratory Judgment to affirm that the policy provides 23 coverage to plaintiffs for any current and future civil authority closures of restaurants in Napa 24 County due to physical loss or damage from the Coronavirus and the policy provides business 25 income coverage in the event that Coronavirus has caused a loss or damage at the insured premises. 26 34. Plaintiffs do not seek any determination of whether the Coronavirus is physically in 27 the insured premises, amount of damages, or any other remedy other than declaratory relief. 28 /// -5COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 Wherefore, Plaintiffs herein, French Laundry Partners, LP dba French Laundry; KRM Inc., 3 dba Thomas Keller Restaurant Group; Yountville Food Emporium, LLC dba Bouchon Bistro; and 4 each of them, pray as follows: 5 6 7 8 1) For a declaration that the Order by Karen Relucio, in her official capacity, constitutes a prohibition of access to plaintiffs’ Insured Premises. 2) For a declaration that the prohibition of access by the Order is specifically prohibited access as defined in the Policy. 9 3) For a declaration that the Order triggers coverage because the policy does not include an 10 exclusion for a viral pandemic and actually extends coverage for loss or damage due to 11 virus. 12 4) For a declaration that the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any current and 13 future civil authority closures of restaurants in Napa County due to physical loss or 14 damage from the Coronavirus under the Civil Authority coverage parameters and the 15 policy provides business income coverage in the event that Coronavirus has caused a 16 loss or damage at the insured premises or immediate area of the insured premises. 17 5) For such other relief as the Court may deem proper. 18 19 DATED: March 25, 2020 DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY 20 21 22 23 By: ____________________________________ Paul G. Carey Valerie R. Perdue Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 -6COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF