A multidistrict litigation panel will hear arguments Thursday on whether to consolidate more than 100 federal court lawsuits that have accused insurance companies of wrongfully denying business interruption insurance as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

On one side are plaintiffs lawyers who argued that it would be more efficient to consolidate the claims and have a single court decide threshold questions. Since the answers to these questions will impact thousands of businesses, plaintiffs' lawyers argue it is preferable for a single court to rule on these issues rather than risk inconsistent rulings by multiple courts.

On the other hand, defandants' counsel insist that the consolidation of the claims for business interruption insurance will delay rulings against multiple insurers in various states that have different insurance laws and policy language, as well as having varying shutdown orders in those states arising from the coronavirus.

The hundreds of cases are in multiple federal courts throughout the country, including Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois and California.

Now, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will decide whether to consolidate all of the coronavirus business-interruption claims that collectively seek billions in potential collective damages. And if so, it must determine which court will handle that litigation.

Texas-based Daniels & Tredennick, Philadelphia-based Levin Sedran & Berman, and Illinois law firm DiCello Levitt Gutzler are among the plaintiffs lawyers who have filed motions to have the MDL panel consolidate the cases. Litigators for these law firms have made multiple arguments to support their request for consolidation.

Lawyers for Levin Sedran filed the request for consolidation, citing 28 U.S.C. §1407, which governs multidistrict litigation. The firm argued that consolidation will prevent "disorderly and chaotic action" and that it "does not require a majority of common factual issues," just that there are common questions presented.

While there are several options as the venue of the consolidated litigation, Levin Sedran & Berman also argued that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania should be chosen because of its geographical accessibility and its strong connection to the litigation due to the coronavirus battering the local economy.

The insurance company defendants, which oppose consolidation, nearly as a whole and some plaintiffs lawyers, including Florida-based Podhurst Orseck, King & Spalding and New York's Boies Schiller Flexner, opposed the consolidation of the cases into one MDL case.

Two trade groups for the insurers, American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said the consolidation would overburden the federal judge assigned the litigation. Instead, they argued it would be preferable to have the pending cases remain in the district and appellate courts that are better positioned to rule on these cases based of their familiarity with state laws.

Stephen N. Zack, a board-certified trial lawyer and partner at Boies Schiller's Miami office, said that there is no certainty when these federal judges will make their ultimate decision.

The MDL Panel consists of seven sitting federal judges who are appointed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The current chair is U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell of the Eastern District of Kentucky.

If the MDL panel chooses to consolidate the cases, which Zack said he opposed, then the Miami attorney suggested they should choose the Southern District of Florida as the venue of the MDL litigation.

Zack, in coordination with other litigants, have argued that the Southern District of Florida has numerous experienced and capable jurists, and that the district is among the most efficient in the nation for resolving cases.

Read the Boies Schiller Flexner filing: