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

Insurers win state appeals rulings in COVID-related cases

Reprints
interruption

Two state Michigan appeals courts have ruled against policyholders in COVID-19-related business interruption litigation.

Both decisions, which were issued last Thursday, cited the Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling in Gavrilides Management Co. LLC v. Michigan Insurance Co.

The state appeals court in Lansing ruled against three restaurants operating in Wayne County, Michigan, in affirming a lower court ruling in favor of Lansing-based Property-Owners Insurance Co., according to the decision in Three Won Three, Corp., Eight Ate, LLC and Ate Ate, LLC v. Property-Owners Insurance Co.

The ruling said a claim for coverage “is effectively foreclosed by Gavrilides’s conclusion that the kind of losses caused by the virus that plaintiffs alleged – the cost of cleaning surfaces – did not constitute damage or loss under the policy.

“In any event…the policy’s virus exclusion expressly bars coverage for damage or loss caused by viruses,” the ruling said.

The Michigan appeals court in Detroit ruled against a spa and salon, Massage Bliss Inc., in Meridian Charter Township, Michigan, in affirming a lower court decision in favor of Lansing-based Farm Bureau General Insurance Co. of Michigan in Massage Bliss, Inc. v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Co. of Michigan.

The court ruled there was no direct loss of property. “There was no allegation or indication that plaintiff was actually deprived or dispossessed of the property,” the ruling said.

The plaintiff, along with many Michigan businesses, was “merely limited or restricted in these of property; there was no direct physical loss of the property,” the decision said.

Matthew J. Heos, an attorney with the Nichols Law Firm PLLC in East Lansing, Michigan, who represented the Three Won plaintiffs, said in a statement, “The Three Won Three decision was expected in light of the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in Gavrilides. The application for leave to appeal the Gavrilides opinion is pending in the Michigan Supreme Court, and Three Won Three will soon follow.”

Mr. Heos said, “As a result of Gavrilides, courts across the country are adopting a ‘common meaning’ for the ambiguous phrase: ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property.’ How can an ambiguous phrase have only one meaning? Such an approach would negate most ‘all risk’ policies ab initio. The fight continues.”

Other attorneys in the cases had no comment, did not respond to requests for comment or could not be reached.

On Friday, two Chicago state appeals courts ruled in favor of a Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. unit in COVID-19-related business interruption litigation filed by restaurant and hotel chains.