Judge rules businesses can sue insurers for coronavirus losses
This decision is the first known U.S. victory for policyholders suing their insurers for denied COVID-19-related claims.
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled on August 12 that a group of hair salons and restaurants can sue their insurer for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The businesses claim the virus caused “direct physical loss” to their premises.
Studio 417 paid premiums to The Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati) for a policy that included coverage for potential business losses due to a variety of possible causes. The suit indicates that Cincinnati violated the insurance contract when it refused to reimburse the salons for lost business income during the time when Missouri’s stay-at-home orders were in effect. Studio 417 also argued that no virus exclusion existed in the insurance contract, so Cincinnati could not use that exemption.
Although no ruling on the merits of this case has yet been handed down, Cincinnati’s bid to dismiss the case was rejected by the court. U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Bough ruled that business income losses may be covered under standard property and casualty policies.
In his opinion, the judge stated that the presence of COVID-19 was not a “benign condition,” and that the plaintiff’s allegations that COVID-19 particles were a “physical substance” that attached to and damaged their property and rendered them unsafe and unstable were credible enough to allow the suit to proceed.
The case is Studio 417 Inc. et al v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, No. 20-03127.
Editor’s Note: This decision seems to be the first known victory in the U.S. for policyholders seeking to sue their insurers for denying claims related to losses caused by the COVID-19 shutdowns. Since the onset of the pandemic, insurers across the country have taken a rigid stance that property policies do not cover COVID-19-related losses. Insurers argue that without the virus actually being present on the insured property, there is no “physical loss or damage” to that property. For now, this decision serves as persuasive authority supporting insureds’ efforts to secure business interruption coverage for loss of business income.
Related: