Court Declines Motion to Dismiss Claim of Coverage for Loss of Income, but Dismisses the Claim of Coverage Under the Civil Authority Provision
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
Derek Scott Williams PLLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
Court Grants Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint That It Suffered Covered Loss of Income Due to COVID-19 Restrictions
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.
Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.
Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.
Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Argument That Policy Covered Loss of Full Use of Premises Due to COVID-19-Related Shutdowns and Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.
Court Finds Insurance Policies Are Not Ambiguous as to ‘Physical Loss’ Requirement and Dismisses Plaintiffs’ COVID-19-Related Damages Claims
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants the defendant insurance company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint seeking coverage for lost business income under their insurance policies. Plaintiffs operated a hotel and adjacent banquet and catering facility. In ruling against the plaintiffs, the court found the virus did not perceptibly harm the properties and the policies included a virus exclusion that prevented coverage of business losses.
Family Tacos, LLC v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
MIKMAR, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants the defendant insurance company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint seeking coverage for lost business income under their insurance policies. Plaintiffs operated a hotel and adjacent banquet and catering facility. In ruling against the plaintiffs, the court found the virus did not perceptibly harm the properties and the policies included a virus exclusion that prevented coverage of business losses.
Plaintiff Fails to Convince the Court That Physical Loss or Physical Damage Has Occurred; Virus Clause Applies and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Is Granted
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
Court Says Plaintiff Fails to State Plausible Claim to Relief for COVID-19-Related Losses but Allows Amendment of Complaint
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.
Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.