Where a salon sought coverage under its business loss policy for losses suffered when it closed because of Covid orders, the insurer prevails because its virus exclusion precluded claims for business losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Adorn Barber& Beauty LLC argues an insurance policy issued by Twin City Fire Insurance Company covers business.
Fire Victims Can t Intervene in PG&E s Insurance Battle – Courthouse News Service courthousenews.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from courthousenews.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Green
Mascoutah dentist Erik Taube argues that his lockdown loss suit against insurer Twin City Fire Insurance Company should not be dismissed because his claims survive the virus exclusion and the closures resulting from government orders caused physical losses of property.
Taube filed his response to Twin City’s motion for judgment on April 9 arguing that under the defendant’s assertion that coverage only exists if the business is physically infiltrated with the virus, he is faced with a Catch-22 in order to recover damages.
“Plaintiff would have to keep the property fully open in defiance of governmental orders and guidance to allow for an infiltration that triggers coverage, but doing so would likely constitute a failure to use reasonable means to save and preserve the property from further damage, thereby triggering the exclusion,” the response states.
Mar.15.2021
Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
On March 8, 2021, the district court for the Southern District of California granted Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s motion to dismiss a flower importer and distributor’s COVID-19 extra expense claim. The court found that the policy’s Acts or Decisions Exclusion which “bars coverage for property damage, loss, and expense that is caused by or results from any decision, act or failure to act or decide, by…any ‘governmental body,’” unambiguously excluded coverage.
See Order at 13. Because Travelers based its denial of coverage on the applicable exclusion, the court similarly dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.