قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Restaurant asks US Supreme Court to appeal against eleventh district court decision on "direct physical loss" | Legal insurance blog for property insurance

Restaurant asks US Supreme Court to appeal against eleventh district court decision on "direct physical loss" | Legal insurance blog for property insurance



Jean Niven recently wrote a blog post about insurance coverage gained or lost based on expert witnesses and the preparation of their reports and testimonies.

Mama Jo & # 39 ;s, Inc. d / b / a Berries, has now sued the US Supreme Court to appeal the decision of the eleventh district 1 that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an "all risk" commercial insurance for corporate income losses and costs caused by construction dust and debris that migrated

Mama Jo & # 39 ;s claims that the eleventh district's decision deviates from controlling Florida law on what constitutes "direct physical loss "according to a risk insurance. Mama Jo & # 39 ;s argues that determining whether damage that can be "cleaned" constitutes "direct physical loss" of property is a matter of great general importance.

In support of the Supreme Court's review, Mama Jo & # 39 ;s argues that the consequences of this are too much. narrow interpretation of the coverage has a significant impact on the insurance industry.

Although this case concerns the cleaning of construction dust and debris as well as the actual physical loss of property and business income, the restrictive interpretation of "direct physical loss" extends to claims involving the cleaning and remediation of water, mold, smoke, soot and virus.

The Court of Appeal's decision requiring "significant destruction" of property under the all-risk policy repeals entire coverage areas that would normally provide coverage for reorganization. costs associated with removing debris from covered property.

Similarly, the eleventh circuit is rational in claiming permanent damage or removal of property and suggests that dust cannot "damage" property because the condition is only temporarily deviating from the current standard. Time element coverage is usually related to business and the loss is measured over a period of time.

Mama Jo further claims that some of the problems presented overlap with the recent spread of COVID-1

9 insurance cases across the country. At the time the eleventh district issued the opinion, this legal issue already affected hundreds of thousands of policyholders. It is significant that as of the date of the petition, the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit has been quoted more than 50 times in short directions against COVID-19 allegations. Insurance companies use the reasoning used by the eleventh circuit here and other jurisdictions to claim that viral contamination is not a direct physical loss because the virus can be cleaned or disinfected. to ignore basic insurance guidelines and cite Mama Jo as a basis for continuing to deny coverage. Homeowners, insurers and industry professionals will closely monitor this case if the US Supreme Court grants certiorari .
_______________________________________________
1 Mama Jo, Inc. vs. Sparta Ins. Co. No. 18-12887 (11th Circ. 18 August 2020).


Source link