On July 19, 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Meda v. AutoZoners, Inc. that further defined an employer’s obligation to “provide” its employees with suitable seating pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commissions’ Wage Orders. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment, holding that where an employer has not expressly advised its employees of the availability of seating, and where the employer has not provided a seat at a workstation, the question of whether an employer has provided suitable seating is fact-intensive and not subject to summary judgment.

(Complaint Alleged Sufficient Facts Regarding Physical Loss Caused by COVID-19, Such That Order Dismissing Case Based on Demurrer Required Reversal Thereof)

(COVID-19 Losses Resulting From Closure Orders And Presence of Virus Itself Does Not Constitute “Direct Physical Loss Or Damage”)

(Insurance Code Section 553 Barring Coverage of Insured’s Willful Acts Applied to Exclude Coverage of Successor Company’s Liability Imposed for Conduct of Predecessor Company)

(Intentional Grading and Clearing of Property Mistakenly Believed to be Owned by Insured Did Not Constitute Accident Under Liability Policy)

(Government Orders Requiring Shutdown of Restaurant Did Not Constitute Physical Loss of or Damage to Property at Insured Premises)