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
Absent a Clear Due Process Violation, the Correct Remedy for Failure to Explain Why a Witness Requested by the Inmate Did Not Testify (a Rule Violation) Is a New Hearing, Not Expungement
People Should Not Have Been Allowed to Reopen Pretrial Suppression Hearing
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND FALSE ADVERTISING WERE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AGAINST AN INSURER PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES; PLAINTIFF, A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, ALLEGED DECEPTIVE AND FALSE MARKETING BY THE INSURER INDUCED HIM TO CHOOSE THE INSURER’S PLAN (CT APP).
FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).
Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Statements, to Challenge Search Warrants, to Request Discovery and to Object to the Conduct of the Prosecutor Raised Questions of Effective Assistance
NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).
APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.

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

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