Do You Have a Claim if Your Business Was Interrupted Due to a Hurricane?
While another hurricane season is fast approaching, many business owners are still recovering from the financial wounds inflicted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
May 16, 2019 at 09:22 AM
5 minute read
While another hurricane season is fast approaching, many business owners are still recovering from the financial wounds inflicted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Unfortunately, salt is still being poured in those wounds. Insurance policyholders throughout Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico first had to fight for payment after billions of dollars' worth of property damage. Many claims that insurers refused to pay are just now becoming lawsuits more than a year and a half after the storms. And as many businesses are quickly realizing, obtaining payment for property damage was only half the battle. The other half involves a critical question: Do insurance policies cover business interruption caused by a hurricane even if there was no physical property damage?
Common sense and experience tell us that a business does not need to have its roof blown off to suffer adverse economic consequences from a storm. Indeed, the impact can be felt before a storm even makes landfall. Businesses close days in advance to take precautionary measures such as securing internal property, boarding up windows and laying sandbags. Employees are sent home early to allow them to make the same preparations at home. Would-be customers are also preparing themselves by spending time and money at the local home improvement store rather than other businesses in the community. Civil authority orders might even place customers within a mandatory evacuation zone.
The noticeable economic downturn can easily continue after a hurricane even if a business was spared physical property damage or is able to quickly repair any damage. Potential customers may be taking measures to mitigate or repair their own property damage at home. Debris or flooding in the streets might prevent access to certain areas, electricity may be out, and other critical infrastructure may be indefinitely damaged. Curfews can keep people at home during certain hours. The negative economic impact of these scenarios is obvious. But is this a covered loss under a commercial property insurance policy in the absence of property damage?
In the aftermath of Harvey, Irma and Maria, insurance companies were quick to argue that this is a requirement in their policies. For carriers, no property damage equals no business interruption. If this position sounds unreasonable on its face, it's because it's frequently incorrect. Many insurance policies do provide business interruption coverage even when there was no direct physical loss or after such loss is repaired. Alternatively, they are silent on the issue or are simply unclear as to whether damage is a prerequisite to business interruption coverage. Under any of these situations, Florida law requires the policy to be read broadly in favor of the insured and coverage. Carriers are not the beneficiaries of ambiguous policy language, and they certainly cannot rewrite their policies after the fact. But this has not stopped them from trying.
Policyholders that accept the carrier's coverage denial at face value become an insurance industry statistic. Dig beneath the surface of that denial, however, and it may begin to unravel. If property damage is required, why is there a separate and independent deductible for business interruption loss? Why doesn't the business interruption insuring agreement make any reference to property damage? Why doesn't the period of interruption begin with damage to property? Why don't the civil authority or ingress/egress coverages require damage to the insured property? Why isn't there an exclusion for business interruption without property damage? These can all be indications that the insurer did not, in fact, issue business interruption coverage that requires property damage. Identifying these elements could be the difference between a substantial insurance payout and going home empty handed.
In addition, to make the case for business interruption without property damage, the importance of a policyholder's historical financial records cannot be overstated. To claim business interruption pre- or post-hurricane is one thing. To accurately quantify it is another. Proving business interruption before a hurricane even makes landfall requires a close consideration of past economic trends that controls for other variables. The same is true for after a storm, when business remains depressed even in the absence of direct damage to the physical property insured. Data is key, and it can be a policyholder's best ally in capturing a hurricane's full dollars-and-cents impact on the bottom line.
Policyholders who suffer business interruption should not settle for less than the coverage they purchased when they need it the most. An insurer is bound by the plain language of the policy it issued, and Florida law provides fee shifting for policyholders who prevail in litigation regarding their contractual rights. It also provides a statutory bad faith remedy when insurers engage in the unfair trade practice of misrepresenting policy provisions. Time, however, is of the essence. Many policies contain suit limitations clauses that shorten the time for policyholders to bring other wise valid claims. For those still struggling to secure payment of a business interruption claim, the time to act is before another storm season is upon us.
Walter J. Andrews is a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth in Miami. His practice focuses on complex insurance litigation, counseling and reinsurance arbitrations and expert witness testimony. He may be reached at [email protected].
Cary D. Steklof is an associate at the firm. He represents individual, corporate and municipal policyholders in all types of first- and third-party insurance coverage and bad faith disputes. He may be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250