The 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Tuesday issued its fourth ruling ruling that policyholders were not entitled to coverage of covid-19 business interruptions, in one case filed by a bridal salon.
three-judge panel in Bridal Expressions LLC v. Owners Insurance Co. is the eighth of a federal appellate court to go against policyholders.
Three other federal appellate courts – the 9th District of San Francisco, the 11th of Atlanta and the 8th of St. Louis – has also ruled against policyholders.
The case filed by Mentor, Ohio, the bridal shop, was one of six class-action lawsuits filed against insurance companies by a group of law firms in April 2020.
its previous judgment in Santo & # 39 ;s Italian Café LLC v. Acuity Insurance Co. which considered that the virus had not caused "direct physical loss or damage to" property required by its coverage.
" What applied to the restaurant in Santos Italian Café is true for the bridal shop today. Throughout the coverage period, Bridal Expressions retained possession of its property and was able to take it into use. Bridal Expressions "does not identify any reason why the text of this policy requires a different result."
"A wrinkle remains," the verdict said.
"This statement does not do much more than repeat the language of the policy," the verdict said. "
" If it was the theory of coverage, moreover, the complaint would probably seek coverage to replace that property and only for pin
The insurer's lawyers had no comments, and the salon's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.