ISO Virus approval and circular is known to everyone. This is general information. How about the internal ISO documents? Do they explain why ISO wrote a virus exception? Do they help to shed light on the real intent of the commercial policy before such approval?
ISO documents have been produced with confidentiality provisions, but a case in Connecticut has resulted in many previous "confidential" documents emerging that everyone involved in COVID disputes should read and study.
For example, Tom Gibboney was an ISO employee working on the exclusion of biological contamination in 2005. This pollution exclusion project was later discontinued by ISO and replaced by the Virus Exclusion Endorsement project.
If ISO and the insurance industry were so clear that commercial policy would no longer cover losses caused by a coronavirus pandemic, why would Gibboney write:
Do we want to exclude anthrax and SARS-type losses (vandalism / terrorism) pollution?
On the next page, Gibboney wrote:
I think an insured would have a reasonable expectation of coverage if asked to cease business by an authority.
This is what we have argued in court. It is strange that the insurance company's lawyers say that this reading is unreasonable when an ISO expert agrees with me. But that's why they want these internal documents secret and say they are not relevant.
Although there will be more on this topic in the near future, it is important to get the word out about these documents. Beneficiary attorneys with COVID business income cases should go to the link in Hartford v. Moda LLC files and the dock, which can be found here.
Thought For The Day [1
– Benjamin Franklin