HNRK Coverage Corner
On October 7, 2020, North Carolina Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr. handed down an important victory for policyholders seeking business interruption insurance for losses arising from closures relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. In North State Deli, LLC v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., Case No. 20-CVS-02569, Judge Hudson granted summary judgment to a group of restaurants, ruling that state shutdown orders constitute a covered “direct physical loss” under the applicable property insurance policies.
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. Under one standard formulation, business interruption coverage is triggered by “physical loss of or damage to” the insured’s property.
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. Judge Hudson concluded that the state-mandated closures caused a “physical loss” of the restaurant’s property, even if there was no “physical damage,” explaining:
[T]he ordinary meaning of the phrase "direct physical loss" includes the inability to utilize or possess something in the real, material, or bodily world, resulting from a given cause without the intervention of other conditions. In the context of the Policies, therefore, "direct physical loss" describes the scenario where businessowners and their employees, customers, vendors, suppliers, and others lose the full range of rights and advantages of using or accessing their business property. This is precisely the loss caused by the Government Orders. Plaintiffs were expressly forbidden by government decree from accessing and putting their property to use for the income-generating purposes for which the property was insured. These decrees resulted in the immediate loss of use and access without any intervening conditions. In ordinary terms, this loss is unambiguously a "direct physical loss," and the Policies afford coverage. The parties sharply dispute the meaning of the phrase "direct physical loss." Cincinnati argues that "the policies do not provide coverage for pure economic harm in the absence of direct physical loss to property, which requires some form of physical alteration to property." Even if Cincinnati's proffered ordinary meaning is reasonable, the ordinary meaning set forth above is also reasonable, rendering the Policies at least ambiguous. Accordingly, in giving the ambiguous terms the reasonable definition which favors coverage, the phrase "direct physical loss" includes the loss of use or access to covered property even where that property has not been structurally altered. Moreover, it is well-accepted that the various terms of the policy are to be harmoniously construed, and if possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect. Here, the Policies provide coverage for "accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage." Cincinnati's argument that the Policies require physical alteration conflates "physical loss" and "physical damage." The use of the conjunction "or" means-at the very least-that a reasonable insured could understand the terms "physical loss" and "physical damage" to have distinct and separate meanings. The term "physical damage" reasonably requires alteration to property. Under Cincinnati's argument, however, if "physical loss" also requires structural alteration to property, then the term "physical damage" would be rendered meaningless. But the Court must give meaning to both terms.
North State Deli appears to be the first reported case holding that insureds are entitled to coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. As previously discussed on this blog, in August, a federal judge in Missouri denied an insurer's motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking business interruption coverage for losses arriving from the COVID-19 closures, and a bench ruling in New Jersey state court, came to a similar conclusion. The takeaway here: Policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for losses arising from the pandemic should not take an insurer’s reflexive “no” for an answer, particularly where the policy does not expressly exclude virus-related causes of loss.
- 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