قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The US Supreme Court refuses to examine the COVID case

The US Supreme Court refuses to examine the COVID case



The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case of Covid-19-related business interruption.

The Supreme Court denied the Oklahoma City-based Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma Inc. certification in COVID-19 disputes it filed against Tokyo Marine Holdings Inc. Philadelphia Indemnity Co.

The organization had unsuccessfully argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that the issue of coverage should be considered by Oklahoma’s Supreme Court.

In December, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City and dismissed the dispute in Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma Inc v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the provision for corporate income in Goodwill̵

7;s policy “unequivocally covered all losses arising from physical exchange or tangible possession of property. None occurred here.”

Goodwill’s policy included a virus exclusion.

When Goodwill argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should accept the case, Goodwill said Oklahoma’s Supreme Court was considering two cases of covid-19 business interruptions.Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Lexington Insurance Co. and Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Co.

It pointed to a 1938 Supreme Court ruling, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, who considered that federal courts did not have the right to create their own customary law for matters falling within state law.

The petition said that there was a “central persuasive reason about the principles of federalism that requires the court to take action in this case.”

The petition, filed in court on April 14, states that state courts have dismissed 51.8% of covid-19 coverage cases, while federal courts have dismissed them at a rate of 92.5%.

The 10th Circuit and other federal courts “have ignored Erie and dismissed cases without regard to existing or forthcoming state court decisions, ”it states.

Tokio Marine waived its right to respond to the request.

Tokyo Marine Attorney Stephen E. Goldman, managing partner of Robinson & Cole LLP in Hartford, Connecticut, said in a statement: “By refusing to review, the Supreme Court acted in an appropriate manner and in accordance with its rules and precedents. .

“The court normally refers to the courts of appeal in matters relating to the interpretation of an insurance or any other type of contract.”

Mr. Goldman said the 10th District Court’s decision in the case was consistent with decisions of other federal appellate courts and the state’s supreme and state intermediate appellate courts.

Goodwill did not respond to a request for comment.

The Supreme Courts of Wisconsin, Iowa and Massachusetts have recently ruled out policyholders in cases of business interruption.


Source link