Broad Policy Endorsement Dooms Motion to Dismiss in COVID-19 Case

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

COVID-19 business interruption rulings periodically have interesting quirks worth discussing. While the majority of cases are being dismissed at the pleading stage, some are not for various reasons. In a recent Ohio state court case, the motion to dismiss on the pleadings was denied in major part because of an endorsement expanding coverage in a business property policy for a restaurant.

Continue reading “Broad Policy Endorsement Dooms Motion to Dismiss in COVID-19 Case”

While the COVID-19 Dismissals Pile Up, the Allegations May Matter

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

It’s been since September that I have blogged about business income and extra expense and civil authority order insurance coverage for COVID-19 closures and the multiple court cases addressing motions to dismiss. That’s because the cases have been coming down by the dozen, mostly, but not always, on the side of the insurance carrier.

In one of the recent cases, another motion to dismiss the complaint granted with prejudice in favor of the insurer, the court’s analysis was extremely thorough and persuasive. But what struck me most was the court’s commentary on the differences chosen by policyholder counsel in articulating the allegations in the complaint. Those differences are obvious and, although I have not done a statistical analysis, it appears those differences often account for the reasons why some courts have not dismissed these COVID-19 cases. What do you think?

Continue reading “While the COVID-19 Dismissals Pile Up, the Allegations May Matter”