Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 NOVEMBER 2020

Top Developments – September 2020

California federal magistrate judge rules that a virus exclusion* in a business owner's policy precludes coverage for an insured's claim for lost income due to COVID-19 closure orders directed at "non-essential businesses."

United StatesCoronavirus (COVID-19)

BUSINESS INTERRUPTION – CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19)

Federal Court Decisions

Franklin Ewc v. Hartford Financial Services Group, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174010 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2020)

California federal magistrate judge rules that a virus exclusion* in a business owner's policy precludes coverage for an insured's claim for lost income due to COVID-19 closure orders directed at "non-essential businesses." Calling the insured's suggestion that the loss was due to the orders and not the virus "[n]onsense," the judge concluded that the exclusion's "plain and unambiguous language" applied since the complaint repeatedly alleged that the virus caused the risk of direct physical loss; also, there was no indication that the policy's "Limited Fungi, Bacteria, or Virus Coverage" (for a virus that results from a "specified cause of loss") was implicated.

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.

See more popular content from