HNRK Coverage Corner
On August 12, 2020, United States District Judge Stephen Bough of the Western District of Missouri issued an important decision for policyholders seeking business interruption insurance for losses arising from closures relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Studio 417, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Case No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Judge Bough ruled that the plaintiffs insureds, who operate hair salons and restaurants subject to government-mandated closures, adequately alleged a claim for business interruption insurance coverage. The insureds submitted claims for business interruption coverage under standard all-risk property insurance policies issued by Defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company. The policies defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The insurer argued that Plaintiffs did not plead a “physical loss” because COVID-19 did not cause any “actual, tangible, permanent, physical alteration of property.” The court disagreed and denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss, explaining:
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a direct physical loss. Plaintiffs allege a causal relationship between COVID-19 and their alleged losses. Plaintiffs further allege that COVID-19 “is a physical substance,” that it “live[s] on” and is “active on inert physical surfaces,” and is also “emitted into the air.” COVID-19 allegedly attached to and deprived Plaintiffs of their property, making it “unsafe and unusable, resulting in direct physical loss to the premises and property.” Based on these allegations, the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges a “direct physical loss” based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase. Second, the Court must give meaning to all policy terms and, where possible, harmonize those terms in order to accomplish the intention of the parties. Here, the Policies provide coverage for accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage. Defendant conflates “loss” and “damage” in support of its argument that the Policies require a tangible, physical alteration. However, the Court must give meaning to both terms. The Court’s finding that Plaintiffs have adequately stated claim is supported by case law. . . . Other courts have similarly recognized that even absent a physical alteration, a physical loss may occur when the property is uninhabitable or unusable for its intended purpose. . . . Plaintiffs here have plausibly alleged that COVID-19 particles attached to and damaged their property, which made their premises unsafe and unusable. This is enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
As discussed in my article, which appeared in the Summer 2020 edition of NYLitigator, insurers have sought to avoid coverage for COVID-19 business losses by taking a narrow view of the “physical loss” or “physical damage” requirement, arguing that some structural property damage is required. However, as this decision shows, the case law supports a broader reading of the coverage. Insureds seeking business interruption coverage for losses arising from the pandemic should not take an insurer’s reflexive “no” for an answer without understanding their rights under the policy.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
- Criminal Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Though Insured Not Charged With, or Convicted of, a Crime
- Insurer Not Permitted to Recoup Defense Costs Absent Express Reservation of the Right to Do So
- Liability Insurer May Not Deny Defense Coverage Based On Extrinsic Evidence “Bound Up With the Merits of the Underlying Case”
- Second Circuit Rules That Lower-Tier Excess Policies Were Exhausted by Below-Limits Settlement with Insured
- Does Contra Proferentem Apply to the “Sophisticated Insured”?
- Sexual Misconduct Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Supervision Claim
- Delaware Supreme Court Rejects “Fundamentally Identical” Standard for Interpreting Related Claims Provision
- New York Court of Appeals Rules That Disgorgement Payment to SEC Did Not Constitute an Uninsured Penalty
- “Intentional Nonperformance” of Contractual Obligations Does Not Trigger Policy’s “Willful Acts”
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- Duty to Defend
- Cyber Coverage
- CGL Policies
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- D&O Policies
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Excess Insurance
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Occurrence/Accident
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- E&O Policies
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018