HNRK Coverage Corner
On December 15, 2020, Judge Schofield of the SDNY issued a decision in 10012 Holdings, Inc. v. Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., Case No. 10-cv-4471(LGS), dismissing an art gallery’s claim for business interruption coverage arising from the suspension of business operations due to the government-ordered closure of non-essential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As discussed in my article, “A Guide to Insurance Coverage for Business Losses Arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic”, which appeared in the Summer 2020 edition of NYLitigator, business interruption insurance typically appears as an add-on to commercial property insurance policies. This coverage is designed to make the insured whole for lost income and additional expenses incurred during a period when business operations are interrupted because of a covered cause of loss.
The policy at issue in 10012 Holdings employed standard language providing coverage for loss of business income resulting from (1) a “direct physical loss of or physical damage to” the insured’s property, or (2) “an order of civil authority” prohibiting access to the property because of a “risk of direct physical loss” to “property in the immediate area” of the insured’s premises. The insurer denied coverage, arguing that the “physical loss” or “physical damage” element requires some kind of physical damage to the insured’s property, which was not alleged in the complaint. Judge Schofield agreed, and granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss, explaining:
New York courts interpreting substantially identical language -- “loss of, damage to, or destruction of property or facilities” -- have found it “limited to losses involving physical damage to the insured’s property.” Roundabout Theatre Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,751 N.Y.S.2d 4, 8 (1st Dep’t 2002). In so holding, courts have declined to interpret such language to include “loss of use” of the property under New York law. Nothing in the Complaint plausibly supports an inference that COVID-19 and the resulting Civil Orders physically damaged Plaintiff’s property, regardless of how the public health response to the virus may have affected business conditions for Plaintiff. The Complaint does not state a claim for “loss” of the insured property. Plaintiff claims the Policy is ambiguous because it covers both “loss of” and “damage to” Covered Property. Plaintiff argues that “loss” and “damage” cannot mean the same thing, as New York law requires contracts to be interpreted to give each term effect. While that principle is true, the term “loss” is unambiguous in this case in light of New York law which interprets such language as not including the “loss of use” alleged by the Complaint.
Notably, some courts in other jurisdictions have taken a broader interpretation of this coverage than Judge Schofield. For example, in a case previously covered on this blog, a judge in North Carolina granted summary judgment to the insured on a COVID-19 business interruption claim, holding that “the phrase ‘direct physical loss’ includes the loss of use or access to covered property even where that property has not been structurally altered.” A federal judge in Missouri denied a motion to dismiss on similar grounds (see our post on the decision here). Earlier this month, another federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a COVID-19 business interruption claim, holding that despite that lack of structural damage at the insured’s premises, “it is plausible that Plaintiff experienced a direct physical loss when the property was deemed uninhabitable, inaccessible, and dangerous to use by the Executive Orders because of its high risk for spreading COVID-19, an invisible but highly lethal virus.” Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 2020). And the first trial of a COVID-19 business interruption claim commenced last week in New Orleans. The takeaway is that the law in this area is still evolving. Insureds seeking business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses should not take an insurer’s reflexive “no” for an answer without understanding their rights under the policy and the applicable law.
- 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
- Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Qui Tam Action Filed Under Seal—and Never Served—Triggers D&O Policy’s Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion
- “Related Acts” and the Claims Made Policy—The Policy Provision that “Cannot Be Applied Literally”
- California Court Rules that FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand is Not a Covered Claim Under Technology Errors and Omissions Policy
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- CGL Policies
- D&O Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Occurrence/Accident
- Related Claims
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Rules of Interpretation
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Cyber Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Pollution Exclusion
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Covered Loss
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Intellectual Property
- Priority of Coverage
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- 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