They had the word “virus” but not “pandemic” so the policy was misleading… yeah, right. Another greedy plaintiff lawyer trying to shuck and jive to get coverage where there clearly is none.
Again, the language is clear. No coverage. But the end result will not be good for insureds. If BI remains as a coverage, it will be on a named peril basis; fire, windstorm etc. No insurance company will be willing to write anything broader. The plaintiffs bar and pandering politicians are making BI an uninsurable risk.
Whether the property damage argument by carriers is “baloney” will play itself out in the multitude of litigations around the country. I would think many courts (and juries) will be sympathetic to retail and small business insureds having to eat the costs of staying in business during sustained periods of full or partial interruption in their operations.
On the other hand those carriers with a virus or pandemic exclusion, have a much better case standing by their policy form and getting reimbursed 100% by the state for serving as a pass-through.
I wonder why The Insurance Journal gives this guy such an easy ride and so much air time.
To quote: “For example, COVID-19 doesn’t impact property. That is hogwash…. Contamination, where I can’t use something, is a loss to property in all the case law.”
That statement is clearly not true, and both the author and interviewee know it. Yet no challenge.
UK regulator is due in court in July, pursuing clarification of meaning on behalf of UK insureds around “non-damage” (UK regulator accepts it is non-damage) BI coverage. Perhaps US regulators might follow suit? (and in doing so cut a significant chunk of the legal bills of both sides).
You are on the wrong side of the pond. No individual state has the authority to decide a coverage issue. A contract is a contract and any disagreement over policy terms must be resolved legally. Also, why no comments about how disagreements like this are governed by the arbitration wording in the policies? The plaintiffs bar will not be happy when they cannot do a “class action”. 4-5 months ago, I doubt any policy holder had even heard the word “pandemic”.
They had the word “virus” but not “pandemic” so the policy was misleading… yeah, right. Another greedy plaintiff lawyer trying to shuck and jive to get coverage where there clearly is none.
Again, the language is clear. No coverage. But the end result will not be good for insureds. If BI remains as a coverage, it will be on a named peril basis; fire, windstorm etc. No insurance company will be willing to write anything broader. The plaintiffs bar and pandering politicians are making BI an uninsurable risk.
Whether the property damage argument by carriers is “baloney” will play itself out in the multitude of litigations around the country. I would think many courts (and juries) will be sympathetic to retail and small business insureds having to eat the costs of staying in business during sustained periods of full or partial interruption in their operations.
On the other hand those carriers with a virus or pandemic exclusion, have a much better case standing by their policy form and getting reimbursed 100% by the state for serving as a pass-through.
I wonder why The Insurance Journal gives this guy such an easy ride and so much air time.
To quote: “For example, COVID-19 doesn’t impact property. That is hogwash…. Contamination, where I can’t use something, is a loss to property in all the case law.”
That statement is clearly not true, and both the author and interviewee know it. Yet no challenge.
UK regulator is due in court in July, pursuing clarification of meaning on behalf of UK insureds around “non-damage” (UK regulator accepts it is non-damage) BI coverage. Perhaps US regulators might follow suit? (and in doing so cut a significant chunk of the legal bills of both sides).
You are on the wrong side of the pond. No individual state has the authority to decide a coverage issue. A contract is a contract and any disagreement over policy terms must be resolved legally. Also, why no comments about how disagreements like this are governed by the arbitration wording in the policies? The plaintiffs bar will not be happy when they cannot do a “class action”. 4-5 months ago, I doubt any policy holder had even heard the word “pandemic”.