قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Maryland High Court joins others with pro-insurer COVID ruling

Maryland High Court joins others with pro-insurer COVID ruling



The Maryland Supreme Court joined several other state high courts Thursday in unanimously ruling that claims for covid-19 business interruption are ineligible for coverage.

New York-based Tapestry Inc., a luxury goods retailer that operates more than 1,400 stores in the United States and internationally, filed claims with Factory Mutual Insurance Co. under its policies for losses of more than $700 million, according to the Maryland decision. Supreme Court in Tapestry Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co .

Tapestry, which had two all-peril policies with FM that provided a maximum aggregate limit of liability per occurrence of $1 billion, denied coverage except for communicable disease response and interruption of communicable disease coverage, neither of which is based on “physical loss or damage ” to property, the judgment said.

The insurer argued that COVID-1

9 does not cause physical loss or damage or loss and coverage was barred by pollution exclusions in its policies.

Tapestry sued the insurance company in US District Court in Baltimore, which asked the state Supreme Court to rule on whether there was coverage.

The court agreed with the insurer that the phrase “physical damage” in FM’s policies requires tangible, physical changes to the insured property.

“Tapestry argues that the plain meaning of ‘physical loss or damage’ also encompassed, in addition to a loss of possession of property, ‘a functional loss of use of property due to the presence of an external force,'” the ruling said.

“In doing so, however, Tapestry fails to engage with the ordinary meanings of the relevant terms” and instead “only states its preferred interpretation,” the ruling said.

Attorneys in the case and the insurer did not respond to requests for comment.

State supreme courts in Delaware, Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington and Wisconsin have also ruled in favor of the insurers in comparable cases, with only the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in favor of the policyholder so far.


Source link