The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a COVID-19-related business interruption case.

The high court denied certiorari to Oklahoma City-based Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma Inc. in COVID-19 litigation it filed against Tokio Marine Holdings Inc. unit Philadelphia Indemnity Co.

The organization had unsuccessfully argued in its petition to the high court that the coverage issue should be considered by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

In December, the 10th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City and dismissed the litigation in Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma Inc v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

The federal appeals court ruled that the business income provision in Goodwill's policy “unambiguously covered any losses stemming from physical alternation or tangible dispossession of property. Neither occurred here.”

Goodwill’s policy included a virus exclusion.

In arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should accept the case, Goodwill said the Oklahoma Supreme Court was about to consider two COVID-19 business interruption cases, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Lexington Insurance Co. and Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Co.

It pointed to a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, that held that federal courts are not entitled to create their own common law for issues that properly fall within state law.

The petition said there is a “centrally compelling reason dealing with principles of federalism that calls for the Court to take action in this case.”

The petition, which was filed with the court on April 14, states that state courts have dismissed 51.8% of COVID-19 coverage cases, while federal courts have dismissed them at a rate of 92.5%.

The 10th Circuit and other federal courts “have ignored Erie and dismissed cases without regard to extant or imminent state court rulings,” it states.

Tokio Marine waived its right to respond to the petition.

Tokio Marine attorney Stephen E. Goldman, a managing partner with Robinson & Cole LLP in Hartford, Connecticut, said in a statement: “In denying review, the Supreme Court acted appropriately and in a manner that is consistent with its rules and precedent. 

“The Court normally defers to the courts of appeal on matters involving the interpretation of an insurance policy or any other type of contract.”

Mr. Goldman said the 10th Circuit’s ruling in the case was consistent with decisions by other federal appeals courts and state supreme and state intermediate appellate courts.

Goodwill did not respond to a request for comment.

The Wisconsin, Iowa and Massachusetts state supreme courts have recently ruled against policyholders in business interruption cases.