U.S. Courts of Appeals in New York and San Francisco have issued three more brief rulings holding that policyholders are not entitled to COVID-19-related business interruption coverage.

In its third ruling on the issue, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit in New York ruled Friday against a group of restaurants in SA Hospitality Group, LLC et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

The ruling said New York-based SA Hospitality “argues on appeal that the government orders prevented it from using its property for its intended purpose, which amounted to a ‘direct physical loss of’ the property.”

“That argument is foreclosed by this court’s recent decision” in  10012 Holdings Inc. DBA Guy Hepner v. Sentinel Insurance Co.,”  the ruling said, in affirming a decision by the U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in Chubb Ltd.’s favor in a COVID-19 business interruption case filed by the owners of a Las Vegas advertising agency, video production business and digital marketing agency, according to Thursday’s ruling in Levy Ad Group, Inc. et al. v. Federal Insurance Co. and Chubb Corp.

“We agree with the numerous published decisions interpreting nearly identical policy language requiring ‘direct physical loss or damage’ to the insured property according to its plain and ordinary meaning and unanimously concluding coverage does not exist,” the ruling said, in affirming a decision by the U.S. District Court in Reno, Nevada.

A different 9th Circuit three-judge panel ruled against Chloe’s Cafe in San Francisco in Wednesday’s decision in Steven Baker, DBA Chloe’s Cafe et al. v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.

The ruling cited the California Court of Appeals’ November decision in The Inns by the Sea v. California Mutual Insurance Co. in upholding a ruling by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. 

“In Inns by the Sea, the Court of Appeals held that the commercial property insurance policy language at issue does not cover loss of business income caused by COVID-related closure orders. … So too here,” said the appeals court, in affirming a ruling by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The 9th Circuit had previously issued three pro-insurer rulings on the issue.

Insurer attorney Clarke B. Holland, of counsel with Pacific Law Partners LLP in Emeryville, California, said in a statement, “We are very pleased with the ruling. Given the decision in Inns by the Sea, and the denial of review by the California Supreme Court, we were not surprised by the ruling. I would anticipate similar decisions by the Ninth Circuit in other pending cases."

Policyholder attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.