Businesses like the Pembroke Pines Tag Agency in Pembroke Pines, Fla., closed due to the COVID-19 outbreak, with many suffering financial losses they are trying to recoup through insurance coverage. (Photo: J. Albert Diaz/ALM)
As COVID-19 litigation has progressed across the country regarding insurance coverage for business interruption, insurers have cited an array of so-called "virus exclusions" to avoid their contractual obligations. Simply stated, insurers have made an industrywide practice of discouraging and combating lawsuits by relying on any exclusion that has the word "virus" in it.
The law in many jurisdictions, including Florida, provides that an exclusion only applies when it is clearly and unambiguously intended to bar coverage for the risk in question. But if this is true, is it appropriate for carriers to avoid coverage by citing exclusions drafted decades ago to address things like industrial pollution and fungus? One Florida court has now answered this question in favor of policyholders.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 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.
