• 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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision Can Assist Policyholders in Their Insurance Coverage Claims for COVID-19 Losses
Main image for Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision Can Assist Policyholders in Their Insurance Coverage Claims for COVID-19 Losses
Publications|Alert

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision Can Assist Policyholders in Their Insurance Coverage Claims for COVID-19 Losses

Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling Alert

5.11.2020

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued an Opinion that, although unrelated to insurance, provides helpful language to which policyholders and their counsel likely will cite in support of arguments for insurance covering business interruption losses related to the pandemic.

In Friends of DeVito, et al. v. Tom Wolf, Governor, et al. (Case No. 68 MM 2020), Pennsylvania business owners brought an emergency petition for relief against the Governor’s executive order closing nonessential businesses to slow the spread of COVID-19.  The petitioners generally argued the Governor exceeded his statutory authority in issuing the executive order.  The Court found “the Governor is vested with broad emergency management powers under the Emergency Code.”  Indeed, the Governor is “responsible for meeting the dangers to this Commonwealth and people presented by disasters,” and the Governor may, by proclamation or executive order, declare a state of emergency.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(a)-(b).  Upon the declaration of a disaster emergency, the Governor has “expansive emergency management powers,” which include controlling the ingress and egress to and from a disaster area.  The petitioners raised several challenges to the application of these powers in response to a viral illness such as COVID-19.

First, the petitioners argued COVID-19 is not a “natural disaster” as defined by the Emergency Code.  The Court disagreed, finding COVID-19 qualifies as a “natural disaster,” which is defined as follows: “Any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, earthquake, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, fire, explosion or other catastrophe which results in substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.”  (Emphasis in the original, citing 35 Pa. C.S. § 7102).

Second, the petitioners argued that even if the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a “disaster,” the Governor’s authority to control ingress or egress to and from a disaster area did not apply because there had not been any disasters in the areas in which their businesses were located.  The Court found “no merit” in that argument.  The Court found the petitioners’ argument ignored “the nature of this virus and the manner in which it is transmitted[:]”

The virus spreads primarily through person-to-person contact, has an incubation period of up to fourteen days, one in four carriers of the virus are asymptomatic, and the virus can live on surfaces for up to four days.  Thus, any location (including Petitioners’ businesses) where two or more people can congregate is within the disaster area.

(Emphasis added).  Therefore, the Court held the COVID-19 pandemic triggered the Governor’s authority under the Emergency Code and the Governor had the authority under the Emergency Code to declare “the entirety of the Commonwealth a disaster area.”

Finally, the petitioners argued the respondents exceeded their police powers by ordering the closure of businesses deemed to be non-life-sustaining.  The Court disagreed, discussing (again) the risks of the virus.  The Court noted the exponential increase in positive cases and deaths in Pennsylvania within a short amount of time.  The Court found that COVID-19 “does not spread because it is ‘at’ a particular location.”  Rather, it spreads because of person-to-person contact (one in four carriers is asymptomatic), and has an incubation period of up to fourteen days.  Further, “the virus can live on surfaces for up to four days and can remain in the air within confined areas and structures.”  Thus, “the protection of the lives and health of millions of Pennsylvania residents is the sine qua non of a proper exercise of police power.”

There are several reasons why this Opinion, which has nothing to do with insurance, can be helpful to policyholders.  By way of background, policyholders have submitted (and continue to submit) claims to their insurers, seeking to recover for their business interruption losses from closures and social distancing requirements related to the coronavirus.  Although property insurance policies often include “business income” coverage, some insurers are denying these claims.  The insurers commonly argue that the loss of business income is/was not caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to property,” as the policies require.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Opinion assists policyholders in their pursuit of coverage (and in refuting the insurers’ coverage defense) in several ways.  First, in holding that COVID-19 constitutes a “natural disaster,” the Court specifically found the virus is an “other catastrophe which results in substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life,” thereby leaving the door open to the argument that property damage may result from the virus.  Second, the Court found the Governor had the authority to declare the entirety of the Commonwealth a disaster area, thereby giving the Governor the authority to control ingress and egress throughout the state.  Many insurance policies provide business income coverage when ingress/egress has been prohibited, such as this instance.  Finally, the Court rejected the notion that there must be a confirmed case of the virus “at” any particular location.  Instead, the Court recognized the significant risk presented by this virus – i.e., there is an incubation period of fourteen days, during which time the virus may be transmitted person-to-person, as well as through the air and on surfaces (and the virus can live on surfaces for up to four days).  Further, one in four carriers is asymptomatic – i.e., one-quarter of the transmissions cannot be traced effectively.  In view of these facts, the risk is, essentially, everywhere.  Therefore, in order to implement social distancing aimed at reducing this risk, policyholders have suffered a “direct physical loss” of their property.

In sum, although DeVito does not directly address insurance coverage, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Opinion may be helpful to policyholders in their arguments for business interruption insurance as applied to their losses related to the coronavirus.

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

Coronavirus Resource Center
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