Main Menu

Michigan Court Decides COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim; Many More Cases in the Pipeline

11.02.2020

COVID-19-related business interruption cases are winding their way through the court system, and one state court, in a matter of first impression, recently issued a decision. A Michigan court dismissed a restaurant owner’s suit against the insurance company that had denied coverage after he argued the state government’s COVID-19-related mandated shutdown had caused him to lose the use of his property and by extension profits. 

Plaintiffs across the nation initiated lawsuits against insurers for COVID-19-related losses and sought to consolidate their actions. The cases went before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in July and decisions were made in October. According to The National Law Review, their request to consolidate cases against four insurers was denied but some were allowed to consolidate their cases against a fifth.

Michigan court’s dismissal: A business interruption claim is a contract dispute that hinges on the language in the individual contract, i.e., insurance policy. Generally speaking, to qualify for business interruption damages, a business owner must show physical damage to the property. This was the crux in the Michigan case. The restaurant owner’s policy expressly required “direct physical loss of or damage to the property.” The insured owner could not meet the physical loss requirement but tried to circumvent it by arguing the governor’s stay-at-home order interfered with his use of the property. The court rejected this argument. Adopting the owner’s position would mean reading words into the insurance policy that are not there, the court noted. Under the traditional rules of contract interpretation, courts do not rewrite a contract when the language in the contract is unambiguous. The insurance company prevailed because the plaintiff failed to show that COVID-19 actually damaged the physical integrity of the property, the court found.  

The case, Gavrilides Management Company v. Michigan Ins. Co., was first reported in The National Law Review (NLR), which provides a link to the court’s virtual hearing on the insurer’s motion to dismiss. The NLR says this represents the “first substantive dispositive ruling on a Covid-19 business interruption claim.” 

Over 140 cases nationwide: Our research shows that COVID-19-related cases are in various stages of adjudication. For example, a plaintiff owning a dentistry practice in Seattle that was shut down under government-ordered mandates filed a claim with his insurer for recovery of business interruption losses and was denied coverage. On April 30, the plaintiff filed a class action seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract against the insurer. In granting the plaintiff’s recent motion for a stay in the case until the JPML rules on consolidation and transfer of cases, the court noted that there were over 140 similar cases nationwide, with more than 20 in the Western District of Washington. See Germack v. Dentists Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119099 (July 7, 2020). 

Also, a day care center in Kentucky filed for business interruption damages after the state government ordered licensed childcare centers closed on March 18 because of COVID-19. The insurer, West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., a Wisconsin company, denied the claim. In a letter of denial, the insurer, citing language in the policy addressing communicable disease-related forced shutdowns, said there were “two essential elements” the insurance holder had to satisfy: (1) “there must be a shutdown or suspension of business ordered by a local, state, or federal board of health or similar governmental board that has jurisdiction over your operations;” and (2) “the shutdown or suspension must be due to an outbreak of a communicable disease at the insured premises.” (emphasis in original) The insurer said the day care center had failed to satisfy the second element; at the same time, the insurer said that “one or both elements required for coverage to be afforded have not been triggered.” 

The day care center challenged the denial of business interruption damages in state court, but the defendant succeeded in removing the case to federal district court. In a recent ruling on venue, the federal court found for the plaintiff and remanded the case back to state court. See ABC Daycare & Learning Cir. v. W. Bend. Mut. Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. LEXIS 114191 (June 29, 2020). 

Stay tuned for more reporting on the courts’ decisions as they come down. 

Team

Back to Page