You are here: / / A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL...

A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” DOES NOT COVER THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CAUSED BY COVID-19 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the cessation of in-person dining services because of COVID-19 did not constitute “direct physical loss or damage” within the meaning of plaintiff’s property insurance policy:

We do not take lightly the severe economic losses incurred by restaurants and other businesses serving the public as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. But our task is to faithfully interpret the terms of the insurance policy before us, not to “rewrite the language of the polic[y] at issue” to reach a result with “equitable appeal” … . The coverage provisions relied upon by [plaintiff] CRO [Consolidated Restaurant Operations] only cover economic losses to the extent they are caused by “direct physical loss or damage” to insured property. We conclude that the business interruption caused by the actual presence of the coronavirus on the premises of CRO’s insured property, as alleged in the complaint, is insufficient to trigger such coverage. Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Ins. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00795, CtApp 2-15-24

Practice Point: Property insurance covering “direct physical loss or damage” does not cover a restaurant’s loss of business caused by COVID-19.

 

You might also like
ON REMAND FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS HARMLESS ERROR (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM’S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE’S REVENGE THEORY.
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP).
THE STANDARD FOR AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF A SENTENCE CLARIFIED (CT APP).
GRANDMOTHER WHO WITNESSED DEBRIS FROM THE FACADE OF A BUILDING INJURE HER TWO-YEAR-OLD GRANDDAUGHTER IS “IMMEDIATE FAMILY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF “ZONE OF DANGER” JURISPRUDENCE; GRANDMOTHER CAN THEREFORE MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL.
Law Requiring Approval Before Health Care Facility Withdraws or Transfers Assets Held Valid
Check Cashing Business Could Not Be Excluded by Zoning Measure

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

A LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY THREATENING LITIGATION CAN CONSTITUTE “RETALIATION”... CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED...