Stefan C. Love has briefed and argued cases in California’s Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal as well as in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Like most appellate litigators, Stefan is a subject area generalist whose true specialty is appellate practice itself. The issues in his cases have included contract law, family law, securities fraud, constitutional law, and more. Many of his recent wins have involved disputes over insurance coverage. For insurance clients, Stefan secured a series of wins establishing that pandemic-related business losses were not covered by property insurance. On the policyholder side, Stefan obtained a Ninth Circuit reversal that allowed GMSR’s bank client to proceed with a $15 million coverage claim against its forgery insurer.
In addition to his work for clients, Stefan joins GMSR partner David Hackett each winter to present a “year in review” summary of notable civil appellate decisions to members of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC).
After graduating first in his class from the UCLA School of Law, Stefan worked at a BigLaw firm and clerked for Judge Paul J. Watford at the Ninth Circuit.
Before going to law school, Stefan was a professor of music theory, most recently at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He has yet to encounter a legal issue more arcane than the dustier corners of music theory.
Outside of work, Stefan enjoys playing the piano, cooking, and spending time with his wife and two sons.
Endeavor Operating Company, LLC v. HDI Global Insurance Company (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 420
Affirmed that COVID-19-related business losses are not covered by commercial property insurance
Affirmed that COVID-19-related business losses are not covered by commercial property insurance
Endeavor Operating Co. sued its commercial property insurer, GMSR’s client, for coverage of its losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging that government closure orders or the presence of virus particles constituted “direct physical loss or damage” to property. The California Court of Appeal affirmed demurrer dismissal—in a published decision issued the day after oral argument. The court joined the majority of prior decisions on the issue to reject Endeavor’s view of “direct physical loss or damage” and deny coverage.
Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 24
Affirmed dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
Affirmed dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
Affirming in a published decision that quoted from GMSR’s brief, the Court of Appeal agreed that Starlight’s property did not undergo direct physical loss. Four other appellate courts in the state had held likewise—but GMSR was briefing to California’s most resistant appellate division on pandemic-coverage issues, with two published decisions reversing dismissal of policyholder lawsuits on a related issue. This time, the court affirmed for GMSR’s client.
Banc of California National Association v. Federal Insurance Company (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022, No. 21-56179) 2022 WL 17583056
Reversed defense summary judgment and allowed bank to proceed with $15 million insurance coverage claim arising from loan to customer who forged key document
Reversed defense summary judgment and allowed bank to proceed with $15 million insurance coverage claim arising from loan to customer who forged key document
GMSR’s client, a bank, issued a $15 million loan based on a forged document. After the borrower defaulted, the bank sued its forgery insurer for coverage, but the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit adopted GMSR’s argument that the forged document was of a type covered by the insurance and allowed the suit to proceed.
Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12
Affirmed validity of prime Beverly Hills commercial lease through 2102
Affirmed validity of prime Beverly Hills commercial lease through 2102
GMSR’s client took over the ground lease of a prime Beverly Hills commercial property in 2003 and agreed with the landlord to extend the lease through 2123. Ten years later, the landlord sued to invalidate the entire lease based on a statute invalidating urban leases longer than 99 years. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the lease should only be shortened, and by only 21 years, thus validating the lease through 2102 and awarding GMSR’s client $1.5 million in restitution. It also reversed the trial court’s failure to consider awarding interest on the restitution award, remanding for the trial court to decide this issue.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.