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

Appeals courts uphold COVID rulings for AIG, FM Global units

Circus Circus

Federal appeals courts affirmed lower court rulings in favor of American International Group Inc. and FM Global units in COVID-19-related business interruption litigation filed by a Las Vegas casino and a Baltimore real estate development and entertainment operating company, respectively.

Plaintiff Circus Circus LV LP, a 2.8 million-square-foot casino in Las Vegas, unsuccessfully appealed a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas in business interruption litigation filed against AIG unit AIG Specialty Insurance Co., according to Friday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Circus Circus LV, LP v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co.

“The district court correctly held that Circus Circus does not plausibly allege that it suffered direct physical damage to its property under terms of the Policy,” the ruling said.

  “Despite Circus Circus’s allegation that the COVID-19 virus was present on its premises, it has not identified any direct physical damage to its property caused by the virus which led to the casino’s closure,” the ruling said.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to a request for comment.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, issued a one-paragraph decision Tuesday upholding a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Baltimore in favor of FM Global unit Affiliated FM Insurance Co. in litigation filed by Baltimore-based Cordish Cos. Inc. in Cordish Cos. Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.

“We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error,” the ruling said.

The appellate court said it dispensed with oral argument in the case “because the facts and legal contentions are adequately represented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”

Attorneys in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.