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
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).
THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Two Dissenting Justices Found Defendant’s Sentence Excessive Under the Facts
PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).
IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT MUST BE EXPLAINED; HERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMEDY THE INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY.
PLAINTIFF WAS CROUCHING DOWN MARKING THE FLOOR WITH DUCT TAPE WHEN A LADDER FELL OVER AND STRUCK HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (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...