One year into the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have issued hundreds of judgments in COVID-19 business interruption disputes, many benefiting insurance companies. Nevertheless, the decisions of these insurers are not based on evidence, let alone expert opinion. For insurers, ignorance is happiness.
Despite early figures in federal courts favoring insurers (state court decisions actually benefit policyholders), the year ahead promises policyholders. Basic science is the key. As researchers continue to broaden their knowledge of COVID-19, it has become increasingly clear that scientific evidence supports coverage for policyholders' claims.
Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine was recently quoted in a Law360 article on this positive. sight. As Mike explained, science proves that COVID-1
The key is, as Mike suggests, that courts go beyond the original threshold of appeal so that evidence can actually be taken into account by the actual Too often in the COVID-19 space, federal judges cancel their jobs under FRCP 12 (b) and 12 (c) and the well-established Twombly / Iqbal ask for standards by requiring policyholders to both appeal ] and prove their case in their complaints. This is fundamentally wrong. As Mike stressed, "
policyholders already have net multiple gains under COVID-19 business interruptions. With increased scientific support and data to demonstrate the effects of COVID-19 on individuals and property, policyholders expect to see many more successful claims in the near future.