Unmasking COVID Coverage Problems: Federal Court Decides Business Interruption Issue
The first federal appellate court to speak to issues of COVID-19 business interruption coverage came on July 2, when the Eighth Circuit affirmed that an insurance company was not required to indemnify for losses resulting from government imposed restrictions.
August 13, 2021 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Business interruption insurance coverage is typically provided as part of a company's commercial property insurance. It is intended to protect businesses against income losses and extra expenses sustained as a result of certain disruptions in their operations arising from a covered cause of loss. As a result of COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns, there has been a flood of litigation brought by policy holders against insurance carriers arising from insureds' business interruptions. While several state legislators have proposed legislation aimed at addressing business interruption issues, insureds have sought more immediate relief from coverage denials by asserting claims of coverage for COVID-19 related business interruption.
In the last year and a half there have been more than 1,500 COVID-19 business interruption cases brought in both state and federal courts around the country. Many courts have made it challenging for insureds to recover business interruption expenses, finding that lost business income must be contingent upon some direct physical loss or physical damage to insured 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This content has been archived.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
© 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 AllNJ Firm Narrowly Avoids Case Dismissal Over Lengthy Complaint Filed in Fed Court
4 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readWho Should Pay? Insurer Wants No Part of $30M Sexual Abuse Settlement
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Troutman Pepper, Claiming Ex-Associate's Firing Was Performance Related, Seeks Summary Judgment in Discrimination Suit
- 2Law Firm Fails to Get Punitive Damages From Ex-Client
- 3Over 700 Residents Near 2023 Derailment Sue Norfolk for More Damages
- 4Decision of the Day: Judge Sanctions Attorney for 'Frivolously' Claiming All Nine Personal Injury Categories in Motor Vehicle Case
- 5Second Judge Blocks Trump Federal Funding Freeze
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