This article is a follow-up to my article of May 4, 2020, which addressed litigation and claims involving business losses as a result of COVID-19. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed throughout the country by business owners who have been forced to close their doors or restrict their operations due to mandated governmental orders and closures due to the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
On July 2, 2020, the first court to make a substantive ruling on these insurance coverage issues held in favor of the insurance company and denied coverage under the business owner's insurance policy under the “business interruption” coverage provision. In Gavrilides Management Company, et al. v. Michigan Insurance Company, the owner of the Soup Spoon Café and The Bistro in Lansing, Michigan filed a $650,000.00 claim with its insurance company for damages it incurred as a result of the government mandated closure of the inside dining in its restaurants due to COVID-19.
The restaurant owner argued that the government order restricted the operations of the restaurant and this amounted to a “direct physical loss” under the terms of the policy because the order blocked public entry to the property. The restaurant owner also argued that the “virus exclusion” in the policy did not apply because the loss of access was caused by the government order, not the virus. The Michigan court rejected both arguments and held that there has to be something that physically alters the integrity of the property and there has to be some tangible, physical damage to the property in order for it to be a “direct physical loss” which could provide coverage. The court further held that the virus exclusion in the policy excluded coverage caused by the impact of COVID-19.
While this case is not binding precedent on Wisconsin courts, because it is the first court to address the substantive provisions of business interruption insurance coverage in light of the COVID-19 virus, this case will likely be cited by insurance companies in all of the other pending cases throughout the country. Only time will tell if other jurisdictions will follow the reasoning of the Michigan court, or if it will take an alternative approach. It should be noted that each insurance policy must be evaluated based upon its particular language that is in effect, as well as the particular facts of the business owner's circumstances. Therefore, simply because one court ruled in favor of the insurance company does not mean that this will be the same result in every other claim brought by a business owner who suffered losses as a result of the mandated government closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.