- COVID-19 pandemic fueling social inequality and political unrest: Political Risk Map 2021
- GFIA responds to Canadian regulator OSFI on draft revised guideline on large P&C exposures and investment
- AXA successful placement of first subordinated green bonds
- Ardonagh and Amynta Group announce joint venture to acquire AccuRisk Solutions
- MS Amlin acquires International Transportation Marine Office
- Julia Graham appointed CEO of Airmic
- Majesco adds new capabilities to Distribution Management Platform expired
- AXA XL appoints Khera as Head of Marine, UK & Lloyd’s market expired
- Newslink Global Insurance Trends-Editor's Weekly Overview expired
- More of the same for 1st April reinsurance renewals: Willis Re 1st View expired
- Insurance Europe publishes response to EIOPA on its pilot dashboard for insurance protection gaps for natural catastrophes expired
- Zurich forges ahead with climate goals to tackle growing risk to society expired
3rd March 2021
Bloomberg Intelligence report indicates US BI claims trial cases direction
A verdict for Lloyd's in the first Covid-19 business-interruption lawsuit to go to trial highlights insurers' strength in such cases in the US, according to a new report published by Bloomberg Intelligence(BI) called "Insurers' Strong Defenses in COVID-19 Coverage Suits".
BI’s litigation tracker shows insurers have won dismissal in over 80% of rulings. Though this trend should extend, says BI, risks can be seen in a few decisions holding that a shutdown order constitutes physical loss, requiring coverage.
A 10th February trial win for Lloyd's in a business-interruption coverage lawsuit by a New Orleans restaurant underscores insurers' strength in such cases in the US, believes BI. The suit against Lloyd's was in the minority in alleging that coronavirus was present on premises, and the policy at issue lacked a virus exclusion. Nonetheless, the court ruled for Lloyd's, denying coverage. Though no reason was given, the verdict suggests, says BI, that the court found that neither the presence of the virus nor government shutdown orders constituted physical loss for purposes of coverage.
“The number of court rulings dismissing COVID-19 business-interruption suits far exceeds those allowing cases to proceed, a trend we expect to continue in the US Courts are throwing out cases primarily because the suits don't sufficiently plead there was a physical loss of property or physical damage, or because the policies at issue contain virus exclusions,” said BI.
“The few cases that survived mostly did so because the coronavirus allegedly was on the premises and there was no virus exclusion. An Ohio federal court and a North Carolina state court are the first to require coverage, holding that shutdown orders constitute a physical loss. Reversals on appeal are possible.”
The note from BI adds that insurer defences against COVID-19 business-interruption suits are strong, but have cracks. Most rulings have rejected cases because they don't claim the virus was on-site, undermining physical loss requirements.
“Even if the Coronavirus was present, as alleged in New Orleans, Missouri and some other cases that survived, it may not constitute physical loss or be found to have caused extended closings. Still, outcomes will vary by policy and state, with Ohio, North Carolina, Washington and potentially New Jersey rulings outliers for now in treating shutdown orders as triggering physical-loss coverage.
“Virus exclusions offer another defence. Notably, Cincinnati Financial policies didn't contain them, and neither did Lloyd's in the New Orleans case. Early estimates put small-business-closing losses at $255-$431bnon a month.”
Lloyd's Trends(2,713 articles)