COVID-19 Virus Exclusion

The allegation of temporary loss of use of property resulting from pandemic-related government closure orders—without any physical loss of the property—is not sufficient to support a claim against an insurer for business income coverage under a policy that requires the suspension be caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property.  Instead some physical alteration of the premises… Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment for the insurer against a business interruption insurance claim by a casino due to COVID-19.  The decision holds that while it may be enough to overcome a demurrer for the complaint to allege simply that COVID-19 altered the surfaces of the plaintiff's business property, at the summary judgment stage much more is required to… Read More

This decision holds that a restaurant established that its business losses incurred due to government closure orders during the COVID-19 pandemic were within the basic coverage of its business interruption coverage but also fell within the virus exclusion and the exclusion for loss caused directly or indirectly by enforcement of an ordinance or law.  Hence, judgment for the insurer is… Read More

Following Marina Pacific Hotel & Suites, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, this decision holds that a complaint alleging that COVID-19 physically changes the business premises by virus-infected droplets adhering to surfaces and transforming them into disease-spreading modalities states an actionable claim for coverage under standard CGL business interruption coverage language. Read More

The communicable disease extension of the comprehensive property insurance policy that Fireman's issued to Amy's provided coverage for the costs of remediating, cleaning, disinfecting, etc. the premises after a communicable disease event, defined to mean  “an event in which a public health authority has ordered that a location be evacuated, decontaminated, or disinfected due to the outbreak of a communicable… Read More

This decision holds that the insured's original complaint failed to allege a covered business interruption loss due to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders.  However, it also holds that it was error to deny the insured leave to amend since the demurrer had been sustained to the insured's original complaint, the insured requested leave to amend and described in some detail what additional… Read More

Joining Inns-by-the-Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 688 and many later decisions, this case holds that COVID-19 and the accompanying stay at home orders did not cause physical loss or damage to the insured's business premises and so did not give rise to business interruption coverage under its CGL policy. Read More

Bucking the trend and disagreeing with United Talent Agency v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 821, this decision holds that the trial court erred in sustaining the insurer's motion to dismiss this suit seeking coverage under a CGL policy's business interruption coverage for losses sustained by reason of COVID-19.  It reasons that however improbable it may now seem, on… Read More

This decision holds that losses due to COVID closures are not covered by the business income and extra expense coverage of a business insurance policy since to trigger coverage the loss must be due to an impairment of operations caused by direct physical loss or damage to property.  For there to be coverage under this policy language, some external force… Read More

Following Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2021) 15 F.4th 885 and Inns-by-the-Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 688, this decision holds that business interruption insurance providing coverage for interruption due to physical loss or damage to property does not cover losses caused by the COVID pandemic or associated government-ordered shut downs of business… Read More