News & Insights
Recent Posts
Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases
WSHB Employer Alert: FFCRA and DOL Regulations 4.2.20
Employment Practices Consultation & COVID-19
It’s a No-Win Situation: The Perils Facing Hospitals Due to the Coronavirus
COVID-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act
COVID-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert
COVID-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)
WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference
Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?
Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team
Read the Room: Arguments that Work in Court but May Backfire at Mediation
WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List
WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office
WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold
Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination
Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!
Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health
WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status
Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership
Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel
Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility
Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims
Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina
WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office
Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action
Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?
WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest
WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List
One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts
Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office
WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter
WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler
Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office
Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office
17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars
WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims
Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World
Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases
WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List
The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters
Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill
WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production
WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar
Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout
Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation
Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant
Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction
He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine
WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold
WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association
Will Payroll Tax Credit Extensions Beget Further Paid Leave Under The FFCRA?
California Jury Returns Defense Verdict in Employment Matter Following Trial During Covid Pandemic
North Carolina State Court in Uncharted Territory in Finding Covid-19 Business Interruption Coverage
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
North Carolina State Court in Uncharted Territory in Finding Covid-19 Business Interruption Coverage
October 23, 2020A Superior Court Judge in Durham County, North Carolina recently ruled in favor of a number of restaurants in their collective action against Cincinnati Insurance for loss of business income due to the Covid-19 pandemic in a case captioned North State Deli, LLC, et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20-CVS-02569.
In a departure from courts across the country, the presiding judge held that government orders restricting the policyholders’ use of their restaurants constituted “direct physical loss” thus triggering the policies’ Business Income coverage. The court reasoned that 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 with the intervention of other conditions” and therefore “describes the scenario where business owners…lose the full range of rights and advantages of using or accessing their business property.” The court went on to say that “direct physical loss” did not require structural alteration to property, as argued by Cincinnati, since that situation is encompassed within the policies’ coverage for “direct physical damage” and the policies must be interpreted to give effect to all terms and provisions. The policies in question did not contain a virus exclusion, and the court found that other exclusions in the policies (“Ordinance or Law”, “Acts or Decisions”, and “Delay or Loss of Use”) did not apply to bar coverage.
The same argument presented here, that government orders restricting use of property constitute “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property, has been considered and rejected by a number of courts nationwide in lawsuits involving pandemic-related business income claims. See, e.g., Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 2020 CA 002424 B, 2020 WL 4589206 (D.C. Super. Aug. 06, 2020) (holding governmental orders, standing alone, do not constitute direct physical loss under an insurance policy); Malaube, LLC v. Greenwich Ins. Co., No. 20-22615-CIV, 2020 WL 5051581 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2020) (holding that Florida governmental orders mandating an insured restaurant to close indoor dining to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 did not satisfy the requirement of direct physical loss); 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, No. 2:20-CV-04418-SVW-AS, 2020 WL 5359653, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020) (“An insured cannot recover by attempting to artfully plead temporary impairment to economically valuable use of property as physical loss or damage.”); Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 5:20-CV-461-DAE, 2020 WL 4724305 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2020) (same); Turek Enterprises, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 20-11655, 2020 WL 5258484 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 3, 2020) (same).
The holding in this case is also arguably at odds with North Carolina precedent. See Gellman v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 602 F. Supp. 2d 705, 710 (W.D.N.C.), aff’d, 357 F. App’x 512 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that the term “direct physical loss” did not include non-physical losses to the building itself); Harry’s Cadillac-Pontiac-GMC Truck Co. v. Motors Ins. Corp., 486 S.E.2d 249, 251-52 (N.C. App. 1997) (refusing to allow business interruption coverage where loss was due to inability to access the property rather than any physical damage to the building). Further, the Commissioner of the North Carolina Department of Insurance, in an April 17, 2020 letter to business owners, advised that “[s]tandard business interruption policies are not designed to provide coverage for viruses, diseases, or pandemic-related losses” due to potentially devastating financial consequences from such a concentrated loss that would threaten the very existence of the business interruption insurance market. https://files.nc.gov/doi/documents/mike-causey-letter-to-business-owners-covid-19.pdf
This North Carolina decision is an obvious outlier. There are many cases considering the same argument made here, in Covid-19 and other contexts, in which courts have held oppositely. See, e.g., Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C. v. Great N. Ins. Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 323, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“The words ‘direct’ and ‘physical,’ which modify the phrase ‘loss or damage,’ ordinarily connote actual, demonstrable harm of some form to the premises itself, rather than forced closure of the premises for reasons exogenous to the premises themselves, or the adverse business consequences that flow from such closure.”). Regardless, this decision is worth at least noting in the evolving Covid-19 business income coverage landscape.