Want More Metal? Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter<\/h5>\n
Enter your information below to get a daily update with all of our headlines and receive The Orchard Metal newsletter.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/p>\n
California’s Court of Appeal has rejected Metallica<\/a><\/strong>‘s lawsuit against their insurance company over COVID-related losses.<\/p>\n The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2021 against the band’s insurer Lloyd’s Of London, when Metallica<\/a><\/strong> claimed that the company refused to cover losses after their South American tour was cancelled in April 2020.<\/p>\n At the time, Metallica<\/a><\/strong> submitted a loss of $3.2 million. Lloyd’s Of London responded to the band, stating that “Unfortunately we have to advise that no coverage is afforded for this matter under this Policy,” meaning that pandemic-related reasons weren’t covered. Lloyd’s Of London specifically cited their policy’s communicable disease exclusion, which Metallica<\/a><\/strong> said is “an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of the policy” and was being called a breach of contract.<\/p>\n Metallica<\/a><\/strong>‘s case was ultimately dismissed in December 2022, though the band argued that the lawsuit should go to trial as a jury could reason that non-COVID-related issues led to the cancellations.<\/p>\n Now Justice Maria Stratton<\/strong> has handed down a decision, dismissing the lawsuit once and for all according to Billboard<\/a><\/em>. Stratton<\/strong>‘s opinion partially read: “To paraphrase Taylor Swift<\/strong>: ‘We were there. We remember it all too well.’<\/p>\n “There was no vaccine against Covid-19 in March 2020 and no drugs to treat it. Ventilators were in short supply. N-95 masks were all but non-existent. Patients were being treated in tents in hospital parking lots. The mortality rate of Covid-19 was unknown, but to give just one example of the potential fatality rate, by late March, 2020, New York City was using refrigerated trucks as temporary morgues. People were terrified.”<\/p>\n Stratton<\/strong> continued: “People were in a position to make a more accurate cost-benefit analysis of restrictions versus potential illness. The fact that governments chose to lift restrictions at that point, two years after COVID-19 was first discovered, does not in any way call into question their reasons for imposing travel restrictions early in the pandemic.”<\/p>\n