1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of November 7, 2022

Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of November 7, 2022

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.07.22

Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

On October 31, 2022, the district court for the District of New Jersey granted American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss a healthcare provider network’s COVID-19 business interruption claim. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for business interruption by communicable disease coverage because the relevant COVID-19 related executive order “restricted certain activities on the Insured Location but did not prohibit access to the Insured Location as is required to trigger coverage under the [business interruption by communicable disease coverage].” Order at 10. The case is Inspira Health Network v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co.

On October 31, 2022, the district court for the Central District of California granted Federal Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss a deli owner and operator’s COVID-19 business interruption claims. The court found that “binding appellate authority” held that COVID-19 pandemic losses did not constitute physical loss or damage. Order at 5-7. The case is Roy Kavin, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.

On October 27, 2022, the district court for the Eastern District of California granted Illinois Union Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss an eye care company’s COVID-19 business interruption claims. The court found the plaintiff’s proposed reading of its “pollution condition” coverage would lead to “absurd results.” Order at 6. The court therefore held the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its claim was covered and dismissed all causes of action. Id. at 7. The case is Vision Serv. Plan v. Ill. Union Ins. Co.

New Business Interruption Suits by Insurers:

Several insurers sued a resort management company in New Jersey state court (Cape May County) for declaratory relief in a COVID-19 business interruption dispute. The policy allegedly contains business income, extra expense, and ingress or egress coverage and excludes loss or damage caused by “indirect or consequential loss of any kind” or by pollution or contaminants. Complaint ¶ 28. The insurers seek a declaratory judgment the policyholder is not entitled to coverage because the coronavirus and the corresponding stay-at-home orders did not cause “direct physical loss or damage.” Id. ¶ 53. The case is Swiss Re Corp. Solutions Capacity Insurance Co. v. Cape Resorts Management Co.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.25

A New Sheriff in Town: State Attorneys General Take Action To Enforce Violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws....