Restaurateur Sues The Hartford, Seeking Coverage for Coronavirus Business Interruption

March 27, 2020

  • March 27, 2020 at 1:19 pm
    Paul Hammack says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 0

    Looks like Hartford Property Choice Deluxe Business Income – Virus has a $50,000 Limit. Fine here’s your check now go away

    • March 27, 2020 at 7:12 pm
      Kelly says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      that would be for property damage not Business income

  • March 27, 2020 at 1:23 pm
    Paul Hammack says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 1

    read the form. Its not for business income loss. So good luck with your lawsuit

  • March 27, 2020 at 1:44 pm
    Roger Mc Cluney, says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 1

    The problem that agent’s face at least in my experience is that insured’s do not want to take the time necessary to understand their insurance coverages. They also do not understand that polices do not cover all losses. I have been asked will my policy cover all losses. I ask them to tell me what loss do they want covered, and I will make sure that the loss is covered.
    There is no such thing as a standard policy anymore. insurance companies have taken the basic policy forms and have modified coverages and limits. So in some cases the agent has to discern which insurance company to present to his client.

    Here in CA the proverbial risk that will hit and cause the most damage and disruption to business is when a major earthquake hits. Few businesses buy earthquake coverage.

    • April 2, 2020 at 4:49 pm
      Steve Goebel says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Hi Roger, I noticed your comment about earthquake being a largely overlooked peril for business income coverage. I work for Arrowhead General Insurance Agency, Inc., and we recently developed a CA stand-alone business income coverage policy specifically for the peril of earthquake which we call “Quake Assist”. And physical damage is not a requirement for triggering coverage on this product, because there will be many businesses without damage, which will be unable to remain open for business (employees unable to come to work, roads/sidewalks closed, utilities out, etc.).

  • March 27, 2020 at 2:11 pm
    JohnM says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 1

    Hmm…same attorney assisting on BOTH cases…sounds like this attorney is trying to be the BI equivalent of the St. Louis based attorney suing every 401k provider. I quote Business income/business interruption with every prop policy I sell, and when clients ask about the coverage I explain it is to keep the bus running if the building experiences an INSURED loss. What this attorney is telling these restaurant owners is that the Covid-19 IS and insured loss, let’s get on the gravy train and go after the rich insurance companies, and when they decline, we will sue your agent for breach of the standard of care. As I have read and heard multiple insurance coverage experts say…..READ YOUR POLICY. I’m sure if you want coverage against a viral infection closing down your industry, you can find a willing agent/carrier to sell it to you. Be sitting down when you see the premium.

    • March 27, 2020 at 2:51 pm
      John C says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 1

      I am surprise no suits filed in the St. Louis City or County area. Usually a great place for Profit seeking attorneys to find an easy verdict against deep pockets.

  • March 27, 2020 at 2:36 pm
    Bond says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 3

    Normally I would agree with the view point of those who agree this is not a covered loss, but being in California who knows!

  • March 28, 2020 at 12:09 pm
    Pablo Libre says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    The Insurance Industry isn’t full of morons like the Government. They understood the colossal risk of a pandemic. Most policies exclude this. However if a few paid the higher premiums for policies that didn’t exclude pandemics, I think there may be a case. Obviously we aren’t seeing the legal contract (policy) to know what is and isn’t covered.

  • March 28, 2020 at 5:57 pm
    Underwriter says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 0

    Short sighted. We’re ALREADY in a property market where insureds are facing 10-30% rate increases, as well as tightening of other terms. Now a handful of folks want to spitball a lawsuit trying to find coverage in what was not intended to be covered. All they will ultimately accomplish is ensure the carriers REALLY make virus exclusions “bullet-proof” going forward; and drive up their own renewal pricing even further so as to cover the insurers’ legal expenses in countering these lawsuits. Question – If a restaurant closes next October after all of this is over, and sells their grills and fryers, how much is it discounted from normal market value of these items because COVID existed in various places in the country 7 months prior? If the answer is “none” – that shows that the property was never damaged in the first place, much less damaged by a covered peril.

  • March 30, 2020 at 10:20 am
    Delta Dawn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Let the insured go ahead and pay the premium first. Let the carrier decide on what rate to charge the insured, what basis and deductible.

  • March 30, 2020 at 2:13 pm
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    In several states, the regulatory agencies full well knowing that there is no BI coverge for COVID-19 are asking the P/C carriers to reform the policies to provide such coverage. Seems fair to me, provided the carriers can RETROACTIVELY collect the actuarily determined premium for a period of time consistent with contractual statutes of limitations in the respective states. The “claw back” mechanism wouldn’t different much from the historical assessment mutual insurance models.

  • April 2, 2020 at 4:42 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Attorneys looking for a big pay day. I tell, they lose, they should have to cover every penny spent defending it.

  • April 17, 2020 at 11:58 am
    Lisa S says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is pretty close to a replay of the uncovered damage that occurred on 9 11 and the Terrorism Risk Insurance act. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Pandemic Risk Insurance act were developed and implemented.

  • May 7, 2020 at 11:45 am
    damien watel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    as a restauranteur with (supposed) coverage for . virus bacteria and civil authority and loss of income. I have in fact suffered all 3.
    I have been ordered to shut down my dinning facilities by a civil authority, the virus is present in the entire country , the entire world so of course it is present at my place of work.
    of course the order to close has caused enormous income loss .
    if I am denied coverage on these 3 specific items for which I specifically alleged to have coverage on my policy , why am I paying for insurance ??? (white collar theft)
    if my business has to close , the lawsuit exposure to the insurance company will be times 10



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*