Court Says Restaurants Fail to Meet Requirements for COVID-19-Related Business Interruption Coverage

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
August 6, 2020

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (869 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5812 Eating and Drinking Places
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
economic damages & lost profits
damages, breach of contract, lost income, COVID-19, business interruption
Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch.
2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 10
US
State Court
District of Columbia
Superior Court
N/A
Higashi

Summary

D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.

See Also

Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch.

Full Text of Court Cases
August 6, 2020

D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition