History Should Repeat Itself: The Longstanding Meaning of 'Direct Physical Loss of' Property
On March 22, Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Christine Ward ruled in Ungarean v. CNA, No. GD-20-006544, 2021 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 2 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cnty., Mar. 22, 2021), that a dentist-policyholder is entitled to coverage for his business income losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
May 06, 2021 at 11:50 AM
8 minute read
Insurance LawOn March 22, Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Christine Ward ruled in Ungarean v. CNA, No. GD-20-006544, 2021 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 2 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cnty., Mar. 22, 2021), that a dentist-policyholder is entitled to coverage for his business income losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, Ward explained "that it is, at the very least, reasonable to interpret the phrase 'direct physical loss of … property' to encompass the loss of use of [a policyholder's] property due to the spread of COVID-19." The Ungarean ruling is the first substantive decision from a Pennsylvania state court judge on key issues in pandemic coverage disputes, including whether the threshold requirement of "direct physical loss of or damage to" property is met in such disputes. Ward's interpretation comports with longstanding, historic usage of this phrase in the insurance industry and as interpreted by courts deciding property insurance disputes.
|- Pennsylvania Law Requires Consideration of the Historic and Industry-Specific Meaning of Insurance Terms of Art.
Insurance companies have used the phrase "direct physical loss of or damage to" property in all-risk property insurance policies for nearly a century. This phrase is an example of an insurance term that has a unique and historic meaning to which courts should look so that such terms are interpreted and applied consistent with their heritage and development over time. Under Pennsylvania law, courts are directed to consider custom and usage of terms that are peculiar to a specific industry and that have obtained a specialized meaning in that field. In Sunbeam v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that "custom in the industry or usage in the trade is always relevant and admissible in construing commercial contracts," and "where terms are used in a contract which are known and understood by a particular class of persons in a certain special or peculiar sense, evidence to that effect is admissible for the purpose of applying the instrument to its proper subject matter."
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 AllThe Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute readThird Circuit Predicts Pa. High Court's Application of 'Gallagher' and 'Donovan' in 'Mid-Century Insurance v. Werley'
12 minute readAfter the Decision in 'Ungarean,' Is the Battle of Insurance Coverage for COVID Losses in Pa. Over?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Elaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 4New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 5'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
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