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
REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
THE NYPD OFFICER WHO EMPLOYED A PROHIBITED CHOKEHOLD ON ERIC GARNER, WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO ERIC’S DEATH, WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM THE NYPD (FIRST DEPT).
STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION.
PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT.
REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

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...