Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Federal court rules against attorney in COVID-19 interruption case

Reprints
COVID-19

A federal district court in Philadelphia has become the latest court to rule against a policyholder in COVID-19 litigation, holding that an attorney does not have business interruption coverage because of a virus exclusion in her policy.

Rhonda Hill Wilson and the Law Office of Rhonda Hill Wilson in Philadelphia had filed suit against Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. unit Hartford Casualty Co. and USI Insurance Services LLC charging breach of contract for the refusal to indemnify her for her business interruption losses after her office was required to close in March because of the pandemic, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia in Rhonda Hill Wilson, et al. v. Hartford Casualty Co., et al.  Her lawsuit also sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The court ruled that Ms. Wilson’s policy’s “Limited Fungi, Bacteria, or Virus Coverage,” which has a $50,000 limit, is inapplicable because it covers only specified causes of loss, listing factors including  sinkhole collapse and volcanic action, and “equipment breakdown accident.”

“Plaintiffs do not attempt to plead any factual allegations that would allow the Court to reasonably infer that the virus is a result of a ‘specified cause of loss’ or ‘equipment breakdown,’” the ruling said, in granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case.

Ms. Wilson said in a statement, “We are deciding next steps.” Hartford and USI attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.

Last week, a U.S. district court in Florida refused to dismiss a COVID-19 business interruption case filed by a medical group against another Hartford unit, holding that a virus exclusion in the policy is ambiguous.

Most of the other rulings, which have been in insurers’ favor, have focused on whether policyholders suffered a “direct physical loss.”