Friday, May 14, 2021
It’s been a year since COVID-19 caused a torrent of insurance coverage litigation regarding business interruption and extra expense coverage for losses due to governmental orders, shut down requirements, and the spread of the coronavirus. With more than 335 decisions having been issued as of early May 2021, the numbers show significantly better odds for policyholders than the insurance industry and many media reports suggest.
‘So you’re saying that there’s a chance!’
There are more than 50 decisions in which courts have either granted summary judgment to policyholders or denied insurance companies’ motions to dismiss in the context of business interruption and extra expense insurance claims resulting from the pandemic.
Creativity Can t Save Fla. Restaurant s COVID Coverage Suit By Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Class Action newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Primary area of interest
Thank You! Law360 (May 4, 2021, 9:16 PM EDT)
Coronavirus Litigation: The Week In Review By Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Illinois newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Primary area of interest
Thank You! Law360 (April 29, 2021, 7:47 PM EDT)
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Trial courts have started to rule and appellate courts are now being asked to decide whether government closure orders enacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic cause restaurants “direct physical loss or damage to property” within the meaning of an all-risk insurance policy. This issue is pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the Southern District of Florida dismissed a Florida restaurant operator’s effort to bring a lawsuit against insurer Lloyd’s of London seeking coverage for COVID-19 related restaurant closures.
In
SA Palm Beach LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Plaintiff SA Palm Beach LLC (“Palm Beach”), the operator of a restaurant called “Sant Ambroeus Palm Beach” filed suit against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (“Lloyd’s London”). Palm Beach alleged “that as a direct result of the global COVID-19 pandemic and certain governmental orders that
Maryland’s highest court adopts pro rata allocation for asbestos-related bodily injury claims under liability policies. The court began by explaining that injury spanning many years often implicates multiple policies and, therefore, implicates a continuous or injury-in-fact trigger under Maryland law. Adopting the reasoning of
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 802 A.2d 1070 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)
, app. dismissed, 821 A.2d 369 (Md. 2003), it rejected joint and several allocation because of its “poor fit” under the policy language:
[T]he pro rata approach is unmistakably consistent with the language of standard CGL policies. Indeed, “there is no logic to support the notion that one single insurance policy among 20 or 30 years worth of policies could be expected to be held liable for the entire time period.” …Consistent with the policy language limiting coverage to that which occurs “during the policy period,” the timing of the injury di