Helping Small Businesses Recover Their Income Losses: Navigating Business Interruption Insurance
Fortunately, most businesses have a viable path to recover some of their losses. Their hope is located in the language of the benefits provisions of their commercial insurance policies. This type of coverage is known as "business interruption insurance."
June 05, 2020 at 11:06 AM
6 minute read
Eric M. "Rick" Ellsley of The Ellsley Law Firm.
Many small businesses in South Florida have suffered major losses as a result of government-ordered closures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although some have received a bit of relief from the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), many others have been left out and are feeling the pain. Some are even out of business forever.
Fortunately, most businesses have a viable path to recover some of their losses. Their hope is located in the language of the benefits provisions of their commercial insurance policies. This type of coverage is known as "business interruption insurance."
What is business interruption insurance? It is exactly what it sounds like: The insurance company pays money to the small business to cover the economic losses that the business sustains when its operations are interrupted. The interruption must result from an event or occurrence that the policy covers. Business interruption insurance coverage is generally found within a commercial property insurance or businessowners insurance policy.
Normally it comes into play when there is "physical loss of or damage to" the property that the business operates within. Hurricanes, fires, floods, etc. are common triggers of this type of coverage. Claims are made and often paid when the physical location of the business is damaged or even destroyed and thus income from the business is lost.
In this COVID-19 situation, businesses that have not been declared "essential" by the government have been forced to close their doors. Many insurance policies have a civil authority provision, which should pay the insured small business when a civil authority (i.e., the governor or mayor) issues an order preventing access to the business.
The key language in these policies often centers around what the policy defines as "physical loss of or damage to" the property upon which it operates. In many policies, "physical loss of" means that an insured business can no longer physically use the actual premises/property to operate its business. The premises has lost its function as a business. Depending on the language within each policy, "physical damage" is not always required.
The concept is similar to an insurer paying an owner to compensate the owner for a stolen company car or stolen production equipment. The items are likely to be in good shape and not damaged, but the insured owner has lost the use of the car or equipment, and thus the insurer pays the fair market value to replace those items.
Many of the policies we have reviewed do not even define what "physical loss of or damage to" means and without an explicit definition, the courts will likely deem the policies as "ambiguous" and the courts must then interpret the polices in a light most favorable to establishing coverage for the insured. The public policy supporting this outcome is based on common fairness. The insurance company drafted the wording in the policy, not the insured small business. If an important term of coverage is not specifically defined and thus the policy language is not reasonably clear and understandable to the average insured, then any ambiguity in the policy is to interpreted against the drafter, i.e., the insurance company.
Also, most policies in this business and commercial insurance space are ALL RISK policies that cover any cause of loss unless specifically excluded. As far as exclusions, the common one since H1NI years ago is the so-called "virus exclusion." Sometimes the insurance companies will use this exclusion to deny coverage in their initial response letter when the small business makes the claim. However, many policies do not have the virus exclusion so the insurers will not have that as an available defense to coverage.
Even if there is a virus exclusion, many are not enforceable for a variety of reasons: the exclusion does not include a pandemic; the exclusion does not use the words "physical loss;" and the virus did not, itself, cause actual physical damage to the property of the business.
Going forward, there is some good news for policyholders who seek to be covered under their business interruption insurance policy. Right now across our nation there is a very strong and bipartisan political will to help small businesses. This may result in some favorable legislation being enacted that would help small businesses secure payment of these benefits from their insurers.
President Donald Trump stated at his April 10 press conference: "You have people that have never asked for business-interruption insurance and they have been paying a lot of money for a lot of years for the privilege of having it and then when they finally need it, the insurance company says, 'We're not going to give it.' We can't let that happen."
In Congress, House Resolution 6494 titled Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 seeks "to make available insurance coverage [under current insurance policies] for business interruption losses due to viral pandemics, forced closures of businesses, … and for other purposes."
At the state level, although Florida has yet to act, there is pending legislation in Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Carolina that would legislatively void the "virus exclusion" in any business interruption insurance policy. Of course, the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution, (Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1) mandates that "No state shall … pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts." Accordingly, there will be a brutal fight on the constitutionality of any of these bills, if passed.
In short, to obtain payment under its business interruption/business income loss coverage, small businesses generally need the following: A businessowners policy or a commercial property insurance policy with a business interruption/business income loss coverage with a civil authority provision. (These are standard coverages in most policies); Be paid and up to date on their premiums; Have documented financial losses as measured by their profit/loss statements over the last 12 months at minimum; and 4) Have been deemed "nonessential" (i.e., not a medical doctor, lawyer or grocery store, etc) as described in various government closure orders.
As all industries navigate the new economic landscape created by this pandemic, business interruption insurance coverage is a valuable tool in the toolbox.
Rick Ellsley is a board certified civil trial lawyer with The Ellsley Law Firm in Plantation. Contact him 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
© 2025 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 All![Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/cc/43/b38dd9c34388b0bf5f2a720c8c65/brian-tannenbaum-767x633.jpg)
Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
5 minute read![SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4c/fb/ea229c724a0a98c1858b6112649f/silver-chase-767x633-1.jpg)
SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
6 minute read![Turning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being Turning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/dailybusinessreview/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/04/Rebecca-Palmer-767x633-2.jpg)
Turning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute read![Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ac/5a/3196ba1c42a48ab3c0259cfcce88/hartsfield-martinez-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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