Six States Consider Extending Business Interruption Coverage to Coronavirus Claims
New Jersey, New York and four other states consider legislation clarifying that business interruption coverage applies to COVID-19 claims.
April 10, 2020 at 10:30 AM
6 minute read
Lawmakers in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana have proposed legislation clarifying that property policies' business interruption coverage extends to losses attributable to the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing. These bills allow policyholders to avoid costly and unnecessary disputes with their insurers over the meaning and scope of insurer-drafted insurance provisions relating to physical loss and damage requirements, and so-called "virus" exclusions.
|New Jersey
The first state to take such action, New Jersey, issued bill A3844, requiring property insurers to pay COVID-19 business interruption claims. The bill's accompanying statement explains that the proposed law is intended to hold harmless that portion of the business community that had the foresight to purchase business interruption insurance for losses sustained as a result of the current health emergency. The bill requires every presently in-force business interruption policy, insuring against loss or damage to property, be construed to cover the perils associated with the "global virus transmission or pandemic" and "the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic."
Insurers would be required to indemnify, up to a policy's limits, lost business income for the duration of the declared State of Emergency (Executive Order 103 of 2020). The bill offers relief to all commercial insureds with less than 100 eligible employees (i.e., full-time employees working more than 25-hours per week in New Jersey).
Although the bill is opposed by the insurance industry, insurers paying claims may apply to the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance for reimbursement from funds collected pursuant to a special purpose assessment made against all carriers insuring risks in New Jersey. The New Jersey Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee approved the bill. The New Jersey Assembly has not yet voted on it.
|New York
New York's assembly introduced draft bill A10226 for debate on March 27, 2020. It too requires property insurers to cover business interruption losses (up to policy limits) resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The New York bill applies to policies offering business interruption and loss of use and occupancy coverage as of March 7, 2020. The bill applies to insureds with less than 100 eligible employees (those working full-time, at least, 25-hours per week in New York).
|Massachusetts
On March 24, 2020, Massachusetts introduced Senate Docket 2888, requiring every property insurance policy then effective and offering business interruption coverage to be construed to include "coverage for business interruption directly or indirectly resulting from the global pandemic known as COVID-19, including all mutated forms of the COVID-19 virus." The bill disallows insurers from denying claims "for the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption on account of (i) COVID-19 being a virus (even if the relevant insurance policy excludes losses resulting from viruses); or (ii) there being no physical damage to the property of the insured or to any other relevant property." Indeed, this proposed law would effectively eliminate what the insurance industry has announced are its two primary coverage defenses. The bill applies to policies issued to corporate insureds with 150 or fewer full-time, Massachusetts employees. As in other states, an insurer may apply to the commission of insurance for reimbursement from funds collected via assessments to Massachusetts insurers.
|Ohio
On March 24, 2020, the Ohio legislature introduced, H.B. No. 589, requiring insurers to cover "losses attributable to viruses and pandemics" under their property policies' business interruption coverage. This proposed law applies to policies issued to Ohio businesses with 100 or fewer eligible employees. Like similar proposals, the Ohio bill would allow insurers paying claims for COVID-19 losses to seek reimbursement from funds collected by the Ohio Superintendent of Insurance from assessments to insurers engaged in the business of insurance in Ohio.
|Pennsylvania
On April 3, 2020, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania introduced H.B. No. 2372, providing an insurance policy that insures against loss or damage to property, "which includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption, … shall be construed to include among the covered perils under the insurance policy coverage for business interruption due to global virus transmission or pandemic." This bill requires the broadest or greatest limit, and lowest deductible be afforded an insured with business interruption losses. The proposed law applies to policies in effect on March 6, 2020, and issued to insureds with fewer than 100 eligible employees. Like other states, this bill enables insurers to apply to the Insurance Commissioner for relief and reimbursement, which may be paid through "special purpose apportionments" or funds the Commissioner collects from property and casualty insurers.
|Louisiana
The Louisiana House and Senate each introduced bills confirming business interruption coverage. These bills apply to policies in effect on March 11, 2020. House Bill No. 858 regards covered perils "due to global virus transmission or pandemic" to be covered. Senate Bill No. 477 includes as covered perils interruption "due to imminent threat posed by COVID-19." The Senate bill is not limited to small businesses, although the House bill applies to insureds with less than 100 full-time Louisiana employees. Unlike other states, neither bill provides an express mechanism for an insurer to seek reimbursement. The Senate bill also requires every insurance policy covering business interruption issued on and after Aug. 1, 2020, to include a notice of all exclusions on a form prescribed by the Commissioner of Insurance.
|Takeaways
The insurance industry's objections ignore states' and insurance regulators' proper role in overseeing and controlling risk transfer, the nature and scope of policies issued to their citizens, and the conduct of insurers selling insurance in their states. Indeed, these bills are not the first legislation aimed at protecting policyholders and attending to risk transfer. When thousands of Connecticut homes were affected by crumbling foundations due to the presence of pyrrhotite in concrete, that state responded when insurers refused to accept this risk. The state recognized that repairing these homes typically required replacing the entire foundation, at a cost exceeding $100,000, and offered relief. The Connecticut General Assembly created the Connecticut Foundation Solutions Indemnity Company to reimburse qualified homeowners from funds, in part, collected from insurers and a surcharge placed on homeowners insurance policies issued in the state.
Today, small businesses are undeniably suffering. These policyholders purchased business interruption coverage, paying a premium for their respective insurers' promise to reimburse them when they suffered loss of business revenue because they could not use their property or conduct their operations. They should not now have their losses compounded by having to battle insurers for the insurance coverage due them.
McCarter & English's Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling team assists corporate policyholders in recovering assets under various business insurance policies. For more information, contact Sherilyn Pastor 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 AllJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readTitle Insurance Agency on Hot Seat Over Homebuyer Fees, Alleged Kickbacks
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome': DOJ Proposes Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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