Blog Archives

Louisiana Supreme Court Reverses a Rare State Court of Appeals Win for COVID-19 Business Interruption Claimant

Posted on March 27, 2023 by Karl A. Schulz

COVID-19 business interruption claimants have had few state appellate court decisions upon which to rely. Louisiana produced one such decision in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 939 (La. App. 4 Cir., June 15, 2022). The insurer prevailed in the trial court in a dispute over whether coronavirus constituted “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. The insured restaurant appealed. Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeal’s opinion became widely-cited by other COVID-19 business interruption claimants. The insurer appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court and Cajun Conti became a widely-followed dispute. As discussed below, the Court of Appeal’s analysis was out of step with the…

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects “Loss of Use” Argument, Nixes COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

Posted on September 19, 2022 by Karl A. Schulz

There is a clear nationwide trend of federal courts disposing of COVID-19 business interruption suits.[1] Insureds are not clearing their initial burden to establish direct physical loss or damage to property, or they are running afoul of virus and contamination exclusions. Relatively few state supreme courts, however, have weighed in to resolve the issue, thereby providing guidance to their own lower courts and federal courts that must follow state law.[2] Insurers and insureds alike have been watching to see which way the Oklahoma Supreme Court would hold. In Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2022 OK 71, the Court joined the national mainstream and ruled against the insured. About The Author

Tagged with: Cherokee, covid, damage, Insurance, interruption, Oklahoma, physical, policy, use
Posted in Uncategorized

Southern District of New York Holds Contamination Exclusion is Ambiguous as Applied to Covid-19 Business Losses

Posted on April 16, 2021 by Paul Ferland, Elliot Kerzner

The Southern District of New York recently held that a contamination exclusion was ambiguous in the context of Covid-19-related business interruption losses. Accordingly, the court held that the issue was inappropriate to decide at the summary judgment stage and denied both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. In Thor Equities LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-03380 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021), an insured commercial property owner sought business interruption coverage under its property insurance policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to determine the applicability of two exclusions, one of which was a contamination exclusion. The exclusion excluded “contamination, and any cost due to contamination including the inability to use or occupy property or any…

JPML Will Not Allow Centralization of MDL Covid-19 Lawsuits

Posted on August 13, 2020 by Alycen A. Moss, Denise Bessellieu

On April 20, 2020, two policyholders involved in Covid-19 class action suits filed the first motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) asking for the transfer and coordination or consolidation of two class actions suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with nine so-called “related actions” filed in federal courts in Illinois, Florida, New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, California, Oregon, and Texas and “subsequent tag-along actions.”[1] Others followed suit in attempting to transfer, coordinate, and/or consolidate actions into several MDLs. There are currently more than 100 insurance companies named as defendants in the cases proposed for transfer. About The Authors

Tagged with: business interruption, coronavirus, Coverage, covid, covid-19, Insurance, multidistrict litigation, physical loss, property insurance, United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Posted in Business Interuption, Direct Physical Loss or Damage