You are here: / / LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT...

LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined plaintiff’s allegation his restaurant lost business because of COVID did not constitute “direct physical loss or damage” within the meaning of the business-interruption insurance policy:

This appeal concerns the issue of whether the actual or possible presence of COVID-19 in plaintiff’s restaurants caused “direct physical loss or damage” to its property, within the meaning of the insurance policy that plaintiff purchased from defendant. The issue of whether business interruptions due to COVID-19 is caused by direct “physical” damage to property presents an issue of first impression for an appellate court in New York. This Court has, however, previously construed the phrase “direct physical loss or damage” in other contexts involving similar insurance contracts. As more fully explained below, we hold that where a policy specifically states that coverage is triggered only where there is “direct physical loss or damage” to the insured property, the policy holder’s inability to fully use its premises as intended because of COVID-19, without any actual, discernable, quantifiable change constituting “physical” difference to the property from what it was before exposure to the virus, fails to state a cause of action for a covered loss. Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Ins. Corp, 2022 NY Slip Op 02336, First Dept 4-7-22

​Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged his restaurant lost business due to COVID. The business-interruption insurance policy does not cover the loss.

 

You might also like
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO WAIVE A VIABLE INSANITY DEFENSE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT VACATED THE PLEA AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT WAS RETURNED TO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNDER A CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK, AFTER THE CUSTOMER’S FUNDS WERE WIRED TO THAT OTHER BANK (PURSUANT TO AN AGREED ARRANGEMENT), WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR UNDER A MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED THEORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CHECK (FIRST DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).
Preclusion Proper Remedy for Discarding of Computer Containing Crucial Evidence​
EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE IN THE COUPLE’S RELATIONSHIP ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY.
IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS HIT BY A FALLING CHISEL WHILE SITTING UNDER A SIDEWALK BRIDGE AT THE WORKSITE TAKING A BREAK; THE CHISEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED AND THE SCAFFOLDING ABOVE PLAINTIFF WAS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT HIM FROM A FALLING OBJECT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING FRAUD AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CERTAIN CLAIMS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION... THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE...