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
OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT).
UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S DISTRESS SIGNAL, A GROUP OF MEN NEAR THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER YELLING, DEFENDANT’S STRUGGLING WITH THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, DEFENDANT’S BREAKING FREE OF AN OFFICER’S RESTRAINT AND RUNNING, DEFENDANT’S FORCIBLY TAKING PROPERTY FROM THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, AND THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, COMBINED TO JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT; THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY REOPENED THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).
FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
A HEAVY PUMP, 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH WAS LEANING AGAINST THE WALL, TIPPED OVER AND STRUCK THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SOUGHT A TEMPORARY LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S ADJOINING PROPERTY TO INSTALL PROTECTIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDINGS; RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL INDEMNIFICATION FOR ANY DAMAGE (AS OPPOSED TO INDEMNIFICATION “TO THE EXTENT COVERED BY INSURANCE”) AND TO REASONABLE EXPERT’S AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.
Increasing Defendant’s Risk Level Based Upon His Mental Retardation Was an Abuse of Discretion
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (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 © 2025 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...