One of many craziest chapters ever written relating to insurance coverage litigation includes Covid-19 first-party insurance coverage circumstances. Judges, typically with out accepting any scientific proof, merely dominated that Covid-19 doesn’t trigger bodily harm. The Catch-22 concern is that the insurance coverage business wrote an endorsement to exclude Covid-19, and a few insurers admitted {that a} covid kind of state of affairs can be lined and not using a particular exclusion.
A movement filed final week involving Affilated FM reveals how some insurers arrange claims processes designating Covid-19 losses as a “bodily loss.”1 A on line casino in Las Vegas argued the next in a movement it filed final week:
AFM informed the Courtroom that proof didn’t exist when that proof not solely did exist however straight contradicted AFM’s central positions on this case. AFM asserts {that a} communicable illness can’t trigger bodily loss or harm. This can’t be squared with AFM’s claims guide, which incorporates Loss Code 60, masking ‘Bodily loss or harm which ends from the precise presence of a communicable illness and the related enterprise interruption as outlined within the coverage.’ Electronic mail of Jason Wing to Richard Sunny (Mar. 4, 2020)…AFM assigned Loss Code 60 to Treasure Island’s declare.
…
The proof that AFM hid plainly meets the relevance normal of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) as a result of it’s related to Treasure Island’s declare. AFM asserts {that a} communicable illness can’t trigger bodily loss or harm, however its claims guide contradicts that assertion. Loss Code 60 explicitly states {that a} communicable illness may cause bodily loss or harm. That’s precisely what Treasure Island has asserted. Some communicable ailments, akin to AIDS, don’t trigger bodily loss or harm to property as a result of they don’t use property as a transmission mechanism. Others, akin to COVID-19, may cause bodily loss or harm to property as a result of they do use property as a transmission mechanism. Whether or not a communicable illness within the latter class does trigger bodily loss or harm to property is a query of science, relying on whether or not the severity of the virus within the transmission medium (insured property) makes that property unfit for its insured use. COVID-19 did precisely this, distinguishing it from the widespread chilly. The extent and length of the impression and harm is a matter of the quantum of damages, not the set off of protection. Treasure Island’s skilled Dr. Joseph Lewnard will testify to precisely this.
The issue for policyholders is that the overwhelming majority of judges have dominated that Covid-19 didn’t trigger “bodily harm” with out holding evidence-based hearings on the matter. They merely refused to listen to and weigh the scientific proof or permit discovery relating to what most of the insurers admitted could also be lined earlier than Covid-19 struck the world. Most circumstances had been misplaced at a preliminary stage with out discovery ever occurring.
The moment cited matter is only a movement, and Affiliated FM could have its day to reply. We are going to maintain you recent on any developments. However it doesn’t matter what the proof reveals, wins have been few and much between for policyholders relating to Covid-19 litigation.
Thought For The Day
Power and persistence conquer all issues.
—Benjamin Franklin
