This Californian Appeal Court judgment previously discussed here (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3)) was also required to consider the insured’s argument that the Civil Authority Coverage Clause applies because the government orders were made in direct response to the continued and increasing presence of the Coronavirus, a dangerous physical condition,
In this Californian Court of Appeal judgment previously discussed here (Part 1 and Part 2) the insured also argued, to support its contention that it incurred a suspension of operations caused by a direct physical loss of or damage to property, that no express exclusion for loss or damage resulting “from any virus”
The Californian Court of Appeal in this judgment and discussed here also considered whether the insured’s business was suspended due to direct physical loss of its property.
The policy required suspension of operations caused by direct physical loss of property.
The insured argued that regardless of the physical presence of the Covid-19 virus, it had
In this Court of Appeal Judgement in the State of California, the Californian appeal court dealt authoratively with the question of whether a commercial property insurance policy provides coverage for a business’s lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court pointed out that while at that time no California appellate court had addressed the
This recent Cape High court judgment contains some useful guidance for insurers in adjusting covid-19 business interruption claims involving recovery or remission of rental.
The court confirmed that as a matter of general principle:
In this judgment, the court held that the indemnity period applicable to the relevant non-damage business interruption extension of the policy was eighteen months and not three months as contended for by the insurer. The judgment is fact specific and turns on the policy wording and structure.
It establishes no new principles. The court
In a September 2021 appeal judgment in Ohio USA, the court held that the State’s order to suspend all in-person dining operations at restaurants to slow the spread of the virus resulting in considerable loss of revenue for the insured was not a loss covered under the insured’s business interruption policy “caused by direct physical