“The Southern District granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the law firm could not satisfy the policy requirement to demonstrate that loss resulted from ‘direct physical loss or damage’ by a covered peril to property, which requires ‘some form of actual, physical damage to the insured premises.’ 17 F. Supp.3d 323, 331.
“The court ruled that coverage did not extend to loss incurred due to ‘the forced closure of the premises for reasons exogenous to the premises themselves.’ Id. at 331.”
Additional reading on this and other COVID-19 insurance coverage issues:
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- The 180-Day ACV vs. RC Notice Myth - July 28, 2020
- Couldn’t Happen To Me - July 15, 2020
- COVID-19 and Business Interruption Insurance Podcast - June 22, 2020