Business Expense Reimbursement Not Limited by EPLI “Wage-and-Hour” Exclusion
Time 2 Minute Read

On November 14, 2016, a federal judge in California denied summary judgment to Hanover Insurance Co. (Hanover), finding that class claims alleging a failure to reimburse reasonable business expenses were not excluded by a “wage-and-hour” exclusion contained in EPLI policies issued by Hanover.  The lawsuit, brought by a former student of the Bellus Academy beauty school, alleged that Poway Academy (the owner of Bellus) and Beauty Boutique, Inc. (BBI) (operator of two other schools under the “Bellus” name), failed to compensate students for working on paying clients at an onsite salon and also failed to reimburse them for out-of-pocket costs to purchase necessary supplies.  The lawsuit alleged a variety of wage-related claims.  The lawsuit also alleged that the schools failed to reimburse necessary business expenses in violation of Section 2802 of the California Labor Code.

Hanover initially agreed to defend the schools under a reservation of rights, but then sued the schools for a finding that coverage was barred for all of the claims against them.  The court found, however, that while the claims alleging a failure to pay minimum wages and overtime would be barred by the policies’ “wage-and-hour” exclusions, Section 2802 is not a wage-and-hour law.  Although the statute functions to prevent employers from offloading expenses onto their employees, it also has other functions, such as providing for indemnification for third-party suits.  Thus, the court found that Section 2802 was not a wage-and-hour law, per se, and thus the alleged failure to reimburse claim was not within the scope of the policies’ “wage-and-hour” exclusions.

The Poway Academy decision is a significant reminder for employers facing “wage and hour” claims that each claim must be assessed on its own merits, and that the mere presence of a “wage-and-hour” claim does not necessarily mean that the entire claim or lawsuit is excluded from coverage by a “wage-and-hour” exclusion.  In fact, as was the case in Poway Academy, the presence of just one potentially covered claim required the insurer to defend the entire litigation (subject, of course, to an equitable allocation among covered and non-covered claims).

The insurance coverage attorneys at Hunton & Williams are available to help employers and other policyholders secure the maximum available coverage, including defense coverage under duty to defend policies.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

On February 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division proposed a new rule to determine whether workers are independent contractors or employees under federal wage-and-hour laws.

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 4 Minute Read

A recent Ninth Circuit decision—Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2025 WL 3754348 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025) —reversed a Nevada district court’s ruling in favor of a D&O insurer that had refused to cover a lawsuit asserting both contract and tort claims under the policy’s contractual liability exclusion. The ruling is a timely reminder for policyholders about why they should carefully scrutinize coverage denials, especially overbroad readings of contract exclusions, and consider pursuing insurers who wrongfully deny coverage.

Time 6 Minute Read

Every January, new California employment laws take effect and 2026 is no different, bringing changes to employment contracts, pay data reporting, paid family leave, and other employment-related topics. The following list highlights five new California employment laws for employers to be aware of in the year ahead.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page