Pennsylvania courts have recently issued several judgments compelling insurance benefits be paid at variance with the contractually intended level. This is exemplified by their generous interpretation of awarding “bad faith windfalls” for a large number of automobile UIM claims. This decision on business interuption coverage should have been expected in the current legal environment in the State. The challenge for P/C carriers to continue to write business in Pennsylvania will be for their actuaries to prospectively anticipate the trend and compute the requisite pricing for the policys.
How is it in any natural disaster listed in the emergency definition above is an act of god? These truly devastating disasters leave property destroyed and unusable, yet in this case a good cleaning will be enough to restore and use it again? I have a dirty car outside that may be damaged from this natural disaster then. Can I submit it as a total loss and receive compensation? If true, and COVID19 originated from a man made laboratory and did not fall from the sky, result from strong winds, or total wave from the ocean, how can we credibly include ‘man released virus from a lab’ into that definition? They are not the same. If you base it on the outcomes of each I argue: Legal and illegal activities may both create tax revenue, but to justify the illegal activities because they generate revenue is not an equal argument.
The Court found that COVID-19 was no different that the other listed natural disasters in that they all involve “substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.” The key phrase here is “damage to property.”
No, the key phrase here is “possible loss of life.”
Did the Court actually find, as the author asserts, that the property is damaged? Or just that the ability to control the pandemic would be enhanced by closing down certain businesses? Did the Court find that restaurants and golf courses were damaged, but that grocery stores and gas stations were NOT damaged, by the same possible presence of a virus – not detected or measured, just assumed?
I am not an attorney and don’t have an expert opinion – but my non-expert opinion is that this litigator is reaching here, and hoping for a big payday, on the way to the destruction of the insurance industry.
The litigators haven’t realized that the destruction of the insurance industry will eliminate their big paydays. Most of their big paydays come from the insurance industry and they are about to bite OFF that hand that feeds them.
Terrible & very sloppy interpretation, let’s hope other courts don’t make the same silly mistake. The key to this whole thing is the word “OR”… “substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.” With COVID-19, it is clear that it is damage to property OR hardship OR suffering OR possible loss of life that trigger the governors authority. Simply because this event is similar to a hurricane by one or more of the items in that series does not mean the judge decided somehow that there is now also property damage.
The exclusion is clear, the wording has been applied consistently for years. To roll this back now would be a terrible move.
Pennsylvania courts have recently issued several judgments compelling insurance benefits be paid at variance with the contractually intended level. This is exemplified by their generous interpretation of awarding “bad faith windfalls” for a large number of automobile UIM claims. This decision on business interuption coverage should have been expected in the current legal environment in the State. The challenge for P/C carriers to continue to write business in Pennsylvania will be for their actuaries to prospectively anticipate the trend and compute the requisite pricing for the policys.
How is it in any natural disaster listed in the emergency definition above is an act of god? These truly devastating disasters leave property destroyed and unusable, yet in this case a good cleaning will be enough to restore and use it again? I have a dirty car outside that may be damaged from this natural disaster then. Can I submit it as a total loss and receive compensation? If true, and COVID19 originated from a man made laboratory and did not fall from the sky, result from strong winds, or total wave from the ocean, how can we credibly include ‘man released virus from a lab’ into that definition? They are not the same. If you base it on the outcomes of each I argue: Legal and illegal activities may both create tax revenue, but to justify the illegal activities because they generate revenue is not an equal argument.
Here cometh the slippery slope….
The Court found that COVID-19 was no different that the other listed natural disasters in that they all involve “substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.” The key phrase here is “damage to property.”
No, the key phrase here is “possible loss of life.”
Did the Court actually find, as the author asserts, that the property is damaged? Or just that the ability to control the pandemic would be enhanced by closing down certain businesses? Did the Court find that restaurants and golf courses were damaged, but that grocery stores and gas stations were NOT damaged, by the same possible presence of a virus – not detected or measured, just assumed?
I am not an attorney and don’t have an expert opinion – but my non-expert opinion is that this litigator is reaching here, and hoping for a big payday, on the way to the destruction of the insurance industry.
The litigators haven’t realized that the destruction of the insurance industry will eliminate their big paydays. Most of their big paydays come from the insurance industry and they are about to bite OFF that hand that feeds them.
Terrible & very sloppy interpretation, let’s hope other courts don’t make the same silly mistake. The key to this whole thing is the word “OR”… “substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.” With COVID-19, it is clear that it is damage to property OR hardship OR suffering OR possible loss of life that trigger the governors authority. Simply because this event is similar to a hurricane by one or more of the items in that series does not mean the judge decided somehow that there is now also property damage.
The exclusion is clear, the wording has been applied consistently for years. To roll this back now would be a terrible move.