California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Tokio Marine Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lyft, Inc., A155908 (Cal. App. 2020):
Finally, plaintiff has not established substantial prejudice. Plaintiff argues that substantial prejudice exists because the driver's status as an employee was a complete defense to coverage, but this argument ignores the arbitrators' ruling that plaintiff's breach of the duty to defend barred it from attempting to prove that defendant's liability was not covered. To find substantial prejudice, we would have to disregard the arbitrators' interpretation and application of Gray v. Zurich, supra, 65 Cal.2d 263, and,
Page 13
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.