Does Business Interruption Insurance Cover COVID-19 Losses?

Authored by Jeffrey R. Schmitt, with assistance from Haley E. Gassel, contributor

Business interruption coverage is like most insurance for small businesses – we pay for it with the hope we never need it. The coverage is intended to protect against revenue lost after a business experiences a covered peril or event which results in a temporary closure. Often this involves a casualty event like a fire or flood, or the inability to operate due to loss of utilities or information systems.

However, businesses across the country have filed claims with their insurers seeking business interruption coverage for COVID-related losses.  This is a theory that, fortunately, most businesses have never had to claim in the past. Some claims have found their way to the courts for determination. The issue often boils down to whether there is physical loss or damage to the policyholder’s business location to trigger business interruption coverage. Some policies include coverage for communicable diseases as well.

While most business interruption coverage lawsuits have not concluded, some recent decisions by federal courts in Missouri have been favorable for businesses seeking coverage. This is due in part to ambiguities in the policies and the lack of prior court decisions involving business interruption claims based on a pandemic. In many ways, these are uncharted waters for the litigants and the courts. Continue reading »

Business Interruption Insurance Coverage and COVID-19

In this time of massive economic downturn, stay-at-home orders and required closures of non-essential businesses, business owners are looking to their commercial insurance policies to provide coverage for their losses. Specifically, insureds are looking to apply the business interruption coverage of their policies. Of course, each specific policy must be read and applied to the insured’s specific situation, but the pandemic certainly raises issues that will need to be addressed by many insurers and their policy holders.

Business interruption coverage provides insureds with protection for a reduction in income resulting from a necessary suspension in operations. Often, this coverage applies when a business sustains loss of income due to physical damage to the property, such as from a fire or flood. Business owners filing claims arising out of the COVID-19 crisis are finding that their insurers do not interpret “physical damage” to include damage caused by the pandemic. Insureds have already begun filing lawsuits across the country, challenging this interpretation. They argue that possible COVID-19 contamination constitutes physical damage triggering coverage.

Some policies specifically address loss and damage from a virus, either in their exclusions to coverage or in their endorsements expanding coverage. Although many commercial policies contain coverage exclusions for damage caused by a virus or bacteria, insureds are examining these exclusions for ambiguities that may be construed in their favor. Disputes are also occurring over the interpretation of endorsements referencing losses caused by a virus. In one such case, SCGM v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, a theater chain filed a declaratory judgment action in The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against its insurer Lloyd’s of London, for its anticipated refusal to provide coverage under a “Pandemic Event Endorsement.” Lloyd’s has asserted that COVID-19 is not specifically listed as a covered disease on the endorsement while SCGM argues it is a variation of SARS-CoV, which is listed.

Another coverage contained in many policies is “civil authority” coverage. This coverage typically applies when a civil authority (i.e., a state or local government) issues an order prohibiting access to a business due to direct physical damage or loss to a property other than the insured premises. Continue reading »

Favorable Changes to 065 Agreements in Missouri Apply Prospectively Only

The Court of Appeals of Missouri’s Western District has issued an opinion holding that the recent amendment to Section 537.065 RSMo. may not be applied retrospectively, under the Missouri Constitution.  The Court of Appeals held in Desai v. Seneca Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3232697 (not released for publication as subject to motion for rehearing or transfer, etc.) that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed in which the insurance company’s motion to intervene and motion for relief from judgment were denied.  The insurance company had argued that Section 537.065, as amended effective August 28, 2017, required that it should have received notice of a “065” agreement and the opportunity to intervene as a matter of right.

Continue reading »

Missouri On Track to Reform Interpleader Law: House Bill 1531 Unanimously Approved by the Senate

As he was leaving office, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed at least 77 bills into law, including House Bill 1531, which may protect insurance carriers subjected to purported bad faith claims.

“Interpleader” is a civil procedure vehicle used to force claimants to litigate a dispute involving two or more claims to a limited amount of money held by a third party, such as an insurance carrier.  A common example is when multiple people are injured in a car accident and the injuries exceed the amount covered by the tortfeasor’s policy limits.  What should the insurance carrier do?

Under the prior law, codified at Section 507.060 RSMo, the tortfeasor’s insurer could interplead the policy limits, but the insurer would remain subject to a purported bad faith claim.  This would put insurers in an impossible situation, choosing between paying claims on a first-come, first-serve basis to avoid time-based bad faith claims, paying the limits on the most seriously injured claim, or gathering all of the claimants’ documentation supporting their injuries or damages in an attempt to globally resolve all claims within the policy limits, and reducing the insured’s exposure to excess claims.

Continue reading »

Recent Illinois and Missouri Supreme Court Decisions Reduce Litigation Risks of Companies Operating in Multiple States

On September 21, 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its decision in Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc, greatly limiting the ability of plaintiffs to sue foreign corporations in Illinois simply because the corporation is registered to do business in and may have minimal contacts with Illinois. As described below, the decision joins Illinois with a nationwide trend disfavoring forum-shopping – a practice in which plaintiffs bring suit against defendants in plaintiff-friendly venues unrelated to the defendant’s contacts and the injury giving rise to the action.

The Aspen case concerned a claim filed in Illinois by a plaintiff who had been injured in a fire which occurred in Indiana. The defendant corporation was incorporated in and maintained its principal place of business in Indiana, although it did maintain a warehouse in Illinois and was also registered to do business in Illinois. The defendant corporation moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of proper jurisdiction as a result of these facts and the Circuit Court agreed. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that maintenance of a warehouse in Illinois and being registered as a foreign corporation in Illinois was sufficient to impart general jurisdiction over the corporation. Continue reading »

Insurance Considerations

Part 9 of a 12-part series on Legal Considerations for Your Missouri Leasing Business: What You Should Consider Now, Later, and Throughout the Process

As a caveat to this discussion on insurance, we recommend that you consult with an independent insurance agent/broker to ensure that you obtain the most appropriate type and extent of insurance coverage that your specific business will need.

Having said that, there are some general insurance issues every residential or commercial leasing business should consider.

First, foremost, and fundamentally – don’t skip over insurance and do not assume your personal policies will cover your company’s property or operations.  Most personal policies do not cover businesses. Continue reading »

Statutory Changes in Missouri Lead to Blue Skies Ahead for Insurance Companies Facing Bad Faith Set-Ups and Collateral Source Rule Issues

Recent legislation signed by Missouri Governor Eric Greitens is expected to promise procedural relief from bad faith set-ups in Missouri as well as provide clarity regarding the collateral source rule.

New Legislation Affecting Bad Faith Set-Ups

Section 537.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes allows claimants and insureds to contract to limit recovery to insurance coverage. This statute is unique to Missouri, as no other states have established such a practice by statute. Typically, the insured, while knowing that he will not be held personally responsible, agrees to either settle the claim or to not legally oppose the tort victim’s prosecution of the claim at trial. Post-trial the insurer is limited to disputing only the legal conclusion of whether coverage existed and usually barred from re-litigating any other aspect of the suit. These agreements are often used to pressure the insurance company into providing a defense where there may not be coverage or to pay policy limits on questionable claims.  They are also used as schemes whereby insureds and claimants work in concert to obtain coverage and create inflated damage awards at uncontested bench trials.

Effective August 28, 2017, Missouri House Bills 339 and 714 repeal section 537.065 and enact a new section 537.058, as well as a revised section 537.065 (as signed by Gov. Greitens). The new law will help curb the abuses associated with section 537.065 agreements by allowing insurers to intervene in underlying lawsuits. By participating in the underlying lawsuit, the insurer will be able to present a more accurate picture on liability, damages, and coverage issues. The bills further provide that an insured cannot enter into such a settlement agreement with a claimant if the insurer is providing the insured a defense without reservation, under the reasoning that an insured should not be allowed to enter into an unauthorized settlement agreement if an insurer defends without qualification. When an insurer defends under the policy, the insurer is fulfilling its policy obligations and should expect the insured to comply with its corresponding policy obligations, including the duty to cooperate and refusal to pay provisions.  As such, section 537.065, as amended, adds the following procedural protections: Continue reading »

Operational Considerations – Purchasing Real Estate – Title Insurance

Part 5 of a 12-part series on Legal Considerations for Your Missouri Leasing Business: What You Should Consider Now, Later, and Throughout the Process

Once you’ve established your legal entity, the next step will be to purchase the real estate you wish to lease (or invest in). The appropriate type of real estate for your business will vary depending on a number of factors, including your location, level of investment, and potential tenant base. Not surprisingly, thorough research, inspections, and planning are critical to ensuring success. In this and the next two posts in this series, we’ll outline several important issues at this juncture: title insurance, indenture review, and ensuring appropriate loan documentation.

Title Insurance

When you purchase real estate you may be purchasing more (and maybe less) than the land and improvements you actually see. The land is likely encumbered by third parties who may have rights (possibly superior to your rights) to your land which could restrict your use and ownership in various ways. Encumbrances can be minor, such as a minimum set-back restrictions simply preventing owners from building up to a property line, but others can be more severe, such as utility or access easements, and even unreleased mortgages and liens – requiring the purchaser to pay up or lose the property. Continue reading »

Is Your Property Insured Against a Riot?

The current unrest facing the St. Louis metropolitan region carries with it the elevated risk of damage and/or destruction of both real and personal property. While everyone intends and hopes their insurance policies cover all eventualities that may arise, the truth of the matter is that not all eventualities are covered by insurance.

Unfortunately, it is generally only after something truly unexpected happens that policies are reviewed and tested for actual coverage. At that moment, it may be too late to both prepare for the event and/or adjust coverage.

As a result, it may be wise now to pull out your current auto, homeowners, renters, commercial or other similar policies to review each policy’s specific language.

One of the coverage limitations to consider are so-called “force majeure” clauses. “Force majeure” is a contractual term that relieves parties from performing their contractual obligations when certain circumstances beyond their control arise, often making their performance under the contract impractical or impossible. Examples of these circumstances can include earthquakes, war, strikes, epidemics, acts of God, and riots. Continue reading »

Unemployment Insurance in Missouri: Should Employers Respond to Claim Notices?

New regulations require Missouri employers to respond timely to information requests regarding unemployment insurance compensation. The federal Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (“TAAEA” or the “Act”) of 2011 requires, among other things, that states increase employers’ duties regarding unemployment compensation claims. Specifically, the Act provides that states must require employers to respond timely and adequately to Claim Notices, information requests from state agencies relating to unemployment benefit compensation claims. It also requires states to charge the unemployment accounts of employers that repeatedly fail to respond to Claim Notices for unemployment benefits paid to ineligible former employees.

In Missouri, an employee that satisfies all the unemployment insurance benefit eligibility requirements may still be disqualified from receiving benefits for voluntarily quitting without good cause or for being discharged for work misconduct. Once a terminated employee files a claim for unemployment benefits, the Missouri Division of Employment Security (“DES”) mails the former employer a Claim Notice, which requires a response within 10 days. The Claim Notice permits the employer to protest an unemployment benefits claim because the former employee quit voluntarily or was discharged for misconduct. If the claim is not in dispute, the employer must still respond to acknowledge the claim.

Some employers routinely fail to respond to Claim Notices. They may systematically choose not to respond to Claim Notices to avoid becoming involved in a former employee’s benefits appeal. Continue reading »