COVID-19 and Business Interruption Insurance: Insureds Face Potential Roadblocks to Coverage
As these legal issues begin to wind themselves through the courts, businesses should take necessary steps to reserve their rights, but should not rely on the immediate payment of insurance proceeds during these difficult times.
April 03, 2020 at 11:00 AM
9 minute read
As New York businesses face unprecedented losses as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated civil closure orders, many find themselves turning to their business interruption insurance policies as a source of relief. However, they could be surprised to find that coverage for the greatest business interruption New York has ever faced may be far from a certainty.
The central issue, and one that carriers are already using as a basis to deny coverage, comes from the standard requirement that the business interruption be the result of "direct physical loss of or damage to" the affected property. Accordingly, billions of dollars in insurance will (or will not) be available to New York businesses based on whether the coronavirus or the associated civil orders constitute "direct physical loss of or damage to" a covered property. While the language in individual insurance policies differs, and even minor variations in language can have a significant impact on whether coverage is available, New Yorkers will undoubtedly face many of the same legal challenges in seeking coverage.
Lessons From Hurricane Sandy
After New York's last collective disaster, Hurricane Sandy, many businesses found themselves unable to operate as a result of governmental orders and a shutdown of utilities. Business owners filed claims seeking relief under their business interruption coverage, and many of these cases ended up in litigation. Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C. v. Great N. Ins. Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 323, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) was a prime example.
In Newman, the insured, a business that could not access its office solely as a result of Con Edison's decision to shut off electricity, argued that the phrase "direct physical loss or damage" did not require actual structural damage to the covered premises, but rather that there need only have been "an initial satisfactory state that was changed by some external event into an unsatisfactory state." Id. at 329. Based on this, the insured argued that the loss of power constituted "direct physical loss of or damage to" the property.
This content has been archived.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.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'If You Are Aware of Areas for Improvement and You Can Play a Role in That, Speak Up,' Says Jennifer Mellott of Freshfields
- 3'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5Burns & Levinson to Wind Down After 64 Years in Boston
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