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
Sealed Records Relating to Vacated Convictions Were Sufficiently Reliable to Allow Expert Testimony to Be Based Upon Them In a Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Trial (to Determine Whether a Sex Offender Should Be Committed to a Mental Health Facility)/However, a Presentence Report Mentioning Uncharged Offenses Was Not Reliable Enough to Be Used as a Basis for Expert Opinion
KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES BASED UPON WHERE THE INTERCEPTION WAS TO BE MADE (NEW YORK); THE CELL PHONES NEED NOT BE (AND WERE NOT) LOCATED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).
HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​
UNDER THE FACTS, THE PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE BY THE PEOPLE’S ACCESS TO HIS RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS; DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CT APP).
LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE; FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE RELIANCE OF A THIRD-PARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE PLAINTIFF, UPON A MISREPRESENTATION.
Daily Incidents of Molestation, Spanning Years, Constituted “Separate Occurrences” Triggering a Deductible for Each Policy-Period
Hospital Did Not Owe Intoxicated Patient a Duty to Prevent Him from Leaving Hospital
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED.

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...