There Is Too Much Foam In My Latte


option 2By:  Seth Kirby

A federal judge in California has recently ruled that a class-action lawsuit against Starbucks can proceed.  The lawsuit alleges that the company has systematically cheated its customers by under filling its latte based beverages.  The plaintiffs argue that Starbucks is deceiving its customers, and saving money in ingredient costs, by failing to fill its latte beverages to the brim with liquid.  Specifically, they allege that a 16 ounce grande latte does not actually contain 16 ounces of liquid, but rather a lesser amount of liquid topped by foam.  Of course, the class-plaintiffs claim that they and all customers who have purchased lattes have been damaged by this deception.

Putting aside commentary about the likely motivation for this type of this type of lawsuit (Hint - Fortune magazine recently reported that the Starbucks mobile app stores about $1.2 billion for their customer’s potential purchases, more than many banks have on deposit).  The lawsuit shines a light on an important concept for insurance coverage analysis – are the damages alleged in the complaint potentially covered by the relevant insurance policy?  The answer to this question will impact whether the suit is entitled to coverage under a liability policy issued to the insured defendant.

Using the Starbucks class action as a example, if the Plaintiffs were only seeking injunctive relief (i.e. a court order forbidding Starbucks from continuing the practice in the future), some liability policies might not provide coverage for the claim as it fails to seek “damages.”  Continuing the analogy, what harm have the plaintiffs allegedly suffered?  There is no allegation of bodily injury, but what about property damage?  Many jurisdictions have held mere economic injury does not constitute property damage as the loss of money is not “physical injury to tangible property.”  Bottom line, if the suit does not allege a covered loss, liability coverage may not be triggered.  Evaluation of the damages alleged and the comparison of those allegations to the policy at issue is a must for proper coverage analysis.

Now, when will someone start a class action regarding the tendency of the baristas to place the lid on top of the cup’s seam?  They leak every time, much to the delight of my dry cleaners.  Maybe there is a conspiracy.



Articles

“Occurrence” v. “Offense”: Understanding the Trigger of Coverage under the Standard CGL Policy

New EEOC Guidance on Employer-Provided Leave Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

There Is Too Much Foam In My Latte

Hair Follicle Testing for Truck Drivers


Learn more about FMG

CGL and Business Liability

Commercial and Complex Litigation

Construction and Design Law

Financial Services and Securities

Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith

Government Law

Labor and Employment Law

Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions



Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
100 Galleria Parkway
Suite 1600
Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5948

Tel: 770.818.0000 / Fax: 770.937.9960

www.fmglaw.com


Copyright © 2016 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Click here to print the article.