Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JUNE 2020

State Insurance Commissioners Issue Notices Regarding Business Interruption Coverage

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Explore more from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

The insurance commissioners of various states including Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia recently issued letters, bulletins and press releases regarding...

United StatesCoronavirus (COVID-19)
Paul S. White
Paul S. White
Siobhán A. Breen
Siobhán A. Breen
Author LinkedIn connections

The insurance commissioners of various states including Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia recently issued letters, bulletins and press releases regarding business interruption coverage. Notably, several Insurance Commissioners' notices specify that COVID-19 claims will likely not be covered due to virus exclusions. The high points of these communications are summarized below.

Arkansas

On March 23, 2020, the Arkansas Insurance Department issued Bulletin No. 9-2020 to inform consumers about business interruption insurance coverage relative to the current COVID-19 health emergency. In the bulletin, the Department explained that in business interruption policies, coverage is triggered only when the policyholder sustains "physical damage to insured property" caused by a covered peril resulting in a quantifiable business interruption loss." (Emphasis in original.) Further, the Arkansas Insurance Department specified that "virus

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

SB 54 Is In Effect: What California’s New Packaging Law Means For Your Business

Although being challenged by an injunction filed on August 20, 2026, by a coalition of 17 states, California’s SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act is now in effect, and companies that sell, distribute, import, or ship packaged products into California should be evaluating whether they have compliance obligations.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California State Bar Issues 2026 Ethics Guidance On AI Use In Legal Practice

Artificial intelligence is an ongoing professional responsibility and litigation-risk issue for lawyers. The California State Bar recently published new guidance. The core requirements are straightforward: AI may assist lawyers, but it may not displace a lawyer’s ethical duties of competence, diligence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, communication, and compliance with law. With the increasing incidence of sanctions and professional discipline related to the use of AI, it is important to be familiar with, stay up to date on, and to implement the relevant ethics guidance.
United StatesTechnology
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Navigating Ex Parte Contact With Health Care Providers In Medical Malpractice Litigation

In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5 (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court held that corporate defense counsel, risk managers, and claims adjusters may not communicate ex parte with a hospital’s former employee health care providers about patient care. The Court reaffirmed Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988) prohibiting ex parte communication by defense counsel with a plaintiff’s treating physicians, held that prejudice is presumed when Loudon is violated, and ruled that a quality improvement (QI) committee member’s involvement in defense strategy waives the committee’s statutory privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200.
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California Closes The Third-Party Data Gap In The CCPA Right To Delete: What SB 923 Requires, From Whom, And When

On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 923 (Chapter 482, Statutes of 2026), known as the Expanding Privacy Rights Act. The law amends two provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): (1) the right to delete (Civil Code § 1798.105); and (2) the methods for submitting consumer requests (Civil Code § 1798.130). The legislation was authored by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency (also known as CalPrivacy). This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Humanoid Robots In The Home – A New Frontier For Product Liability And Privacy Claims

Humanoid robots are entering American homes at an unprecedented pace, with companies like Figure AI, Unitree, and Tesla deploying AI-powered machines capable of learning and adapting in real time. As these autonomous devices become commonplace, outdated legal frameworks governing product liability, privacy protections, and insurance coverage face mounting pressure to address novel risks ranging from physical injuries to unauthorized biometric data collection.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Employment Tip Of The Month – October 2026

There are currently 19 states that legally require employers to permit employees (and sometimes former employees) to view and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file. As of November 8, 2026, that number will increase to 20, when New York’s recently enacted Personnel Records Access Law goes into effect. The majority of states have no law requiring access to personnel files and there is no federal law that confers on current or former employees a statutory right to access their personnel files.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP