• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Media item displaying New Jersey Court Refuses to Dismiss Policyholders’ COVID-Related Business Interruption Claims, Dealing a Blow to Insurer’s Arguments That Such Claims Cannot Constitute Covered Loss Under a Property Policy
Main image for New Jersey Court Refuses to Dismiss Policyholders’ COVID-Related Business Interruption Claims, Dealing a Blow to Insurer’s Arguments That Such Claims Cannot Constitute Covered Loss Under a Property Policy
Publications|Alert

New Jersey Court Refuses to Dismiss Policyholders’ COVID-Related Business Interruption Claims, Dealing a Blow to Insurer’s Arguments That Such Claims Cannot Constitute Covered Loss Under a Property Policy

Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling Alert

9.16.2020

A New Jersey state court recently rejected an insurer’s claim that COVID-related losses cannot qualify as covered losses. In Optical Services USA/JCI v. Franklin Mutual Insurance Co., No. BER-L-3681-20, pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, the policyholders assert they purchased business interruption insurance coverage to protect their businesses from an “unanticipated crisis.”  They contend such a crisis struck in March 2020, when the novel coronavirus spread across the globe, causing governments – including the State of New Jersey – to take dramatic action. Specifically, Governor Murphy issued Executive Orders requiring nonessential businesses to close and ordering residents to stay home. Plaintiffs allege they closed their businesses in compliance with Governor Murphy’s orders and, as a result, suffered significant financial loss covered by their insurance policies.

The insurer denied coverage and moved to dismiss the Complaint for its alleged failure to state a legal claim. Relying on policy language that defined covered loss as “fortuitous direct physical damage to or destruction of covered property by a covered cause of loss,” the insurer’s counsel argued the policy defines loss as requiring “physical impact.”  Op. at 11. Because “[t]here is no known instance of COVID-19 transmission or contamination within the premises of plaintiffs’ businesses,” the insurer argued there was no “direct physical loss.”  Id. at 8-9.

The court challenged the insurer, questioning why the policy did not have “specific exclusions for an event such as this.”  Id. at 11. The insurer conceded that there was no specifically applicable exclusion and that the policies’ contamination exclusions did not apply to this situation. Instead, the insurer resorted to arguing the coverage definition had not been satisfied. Id. at 12.

The policyholders responded they “were forced to close their businesses because the executive order issued by the State … [and] across the country in emergency response to the pandemic found that there is a dangerous condition on plaintiffs’ property.”  Id. at 13. Plaintiffs asserted two main bases for coverage being triggered under their policies. First, plaintiffs argued a dangerous condition on property can constitute physical loss, citing Gregory Packaging Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165232 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2014), in which the court found “physical loss or damage” when ammonia gas discharged into the facility’s air rendered the facility “temporarily unfit for occupancy.”  Second, plaintiffs argued the closure orders “not only affected plaintiffs’ businesses, but they affected . . . all properties around plaintiffs” thereby triggering civil authority coverage. Slip. op.at 15.

The court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss, noting the “pivotal issue” of the “interpretation of a direct covered loss under the policy and whether or not there was physical damage to the plaintiffs’ business.”  Id. at 24-25. The plaintiffs argued the loss of physical functionality and use of their business constituted a covered loss, while the insurer argued the opposite. The court found the insurer did not provide the it with any controlling legal authority to support its interpretation. The court, conversely, found the plaintiffs’ argument was supported by Wakefern Food Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 406 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 2009) — a lawsuit handled by McCarter & English. The Wakefern court found a grocery chain was covered for loss of power because the electrical grid and transmission lines were not physically capable of performing their essential function of providing electricity. Relying on that ruling, the Optical Services court held that “[s]ince the term ‘physical’ can mean more than material alteration or damage, it is incumbent on the insurer to clearly and specifically rule out coverage in the circumstances where it was not to be provided.”  Id. at 28 (citing Wakefern, 406 N.J. Super. at 542). This precedent required rejection of the insurer’s motion to dismiss in the absence of a complete record. Id.

The court concluded the policyholders “should be afforded the opportunity to develop their case and prove the event of the COVID-19 closure may be a covered event under the Coverage C, Loss of Income, when occupancy of the described premises is prohibited by civil authorities.”  Id. at 29. The court further noted: “There is an interesting argument made before this Court that physical damage occurs where a policyholder loses functionality of their property and by operation of civil authority such as the entry of an executive order results in a change to the property.”  Id. The court found this coverage theory warranted a denial of the insurer’s motion to dismiss at that early stage of the litigation. Id.

The Optical Services decision accords with numerous decisions (in New Jersey and elsewhere), finding coverage for the loss of use or function of property, even when there exists little or no tangible damage to the property. It also rebuts the noncoverage narrative the insurance industry has tried to perpetuate to dissuade policyholders from seeking coverage for their pandemic-related losses.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Sherilyn Pastor
Anthony Bartell
Adam Budesheim
J. Wylie Donald
Ira M. Gottlieb
Gregory H. Horowitz
J. Forrest Jones
David C. Kane
Thomas W. Ladd
Joann M. Lytle
Steven H. Weisman
Jennifer Black Strutt

Related Services

Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel