In its brief, UP writes in support of Inns’ appeal to provide further context to this Court regarding: (1) why the insurance term “direct physical loss of or damage to” property does not require a showing of “physical alteration” to real property; (2) how the insurance industry, including California Mutual, has continued to use the phrase “direct physical loss of or damage to” property despite ample admonitions from courts that the term is at least ambiguous; (3) why California Mutual’s bundle of favored authorities, including failed attempts by federal district courts to apply California law in this area, are inapposite; and (4) how the evolving science regarding COVID-19 compels that these coverage questions be decided on a full record, not just on the pleadings. UP argues these three points:
A. California Law Does Not Require A Showing of “Physical Alteration” Before Finding “Physical Loss Of Or Damage” To Property.
B. Insurance Companies, Like California Mutual, Have Known For Decades That “Physical Loss” To Real Property Does Not Necessarily Require “Physical Alteration.”
C. California Mutual’s Authorities Are Inapposite, Unhelpful, And Should Be Given Little Weight.