The latest voluntary dismissal of the Erie COVID-19 Enterprise Interruption Safety Insurance coverage Litigation marks the top of a major chapter in insurance coverage protection regulation.1 As a member of the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee on this MDL, I had the privilege of working alongside among the most gifted policyholder attorneys within the nation, together with Kelly Iverson, Adam Moskowitz, Richard Golomb, and Jack Goodrich.
The collaborative spirit and authorized acumen demonstrated all through this litigation have been really outstanding. Our group labored tirelessly to advocate for enterprise homeowners who suffered devastating losses through the pandemic. Nonetheless, because the panorama of COVID-19 insurance coverage protection litigation advanced throughout the nation, it grew to become more and more clear that courts have been adopting a restrictive view of protection for pandemic-related losses.
As I’ve beforehand mentioned on this weblog, the California and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts’ rulings towards policyholders mirror the overwhelming consensus that has emerged nationwide. Courts have constantly held that COVID-19 associated enterprise interruption losses don’t represent “direct bodily loss or harm” to property as required by most business property insurance policies.
But, I nonetheless wrestle with the inherent contradiction in these rulings. In a earlier put up, Cat Urine That Smells Unhealthy is Lined However Not Covid, Which Can Kill You, I highlighted how courts have discovered protection for cat urine odors that make properties briefly unusable whereas denying protection for a lethal virus that rendered companies equally – if no more – unusable. This disparity in therapy between various kinds of invisible forces affecting property use continues to perplex many in our subject.
The Erie MDL journey has strengthened an important lesson: Generally, even the strongest authorized arguments and most devoted advocacy can’t overcome the momentum of judicial interpretation. Whereas we believed (and nonetheless consider) that COVID-19 losses ought to be lined below many business property insurance policies, the courts have spoken with close to uniformity on this situation.
Regardless of this final result, I stay happy with our efforts to struggle for policyholders’ rights. The authorized theories and arguments developed throughout this litigation will undoubtedly affect future protection disputes involving novel circumstances affecting property use and accessibility.
Trying forward, this expertise reminds us that the insurance coverage business and courts should grapple with evolving dangers in our fashionable world. Whereas COVID-19 claims might not have succeeded, the questions raised about what constitutes “bodily loss or harm” in an period of invisible threats stay related for future protection disputes.
To my fellow members of the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee and all counsel concerned: Thanks on your dedication, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to advocating for policyholders throughout this unprecedented problem. Whereas the result wasn’t what we hoped for, the collaborative spirit and mental rigor of our efforts set a excessive normal for future policyholder advocacy.
For policyholders and their counsel, this litigation underscores the significance of rigorously reviewing coverage language and staying attuned to rising protection interpretations. As we transfer ahead, we should proceed pushing for clearer coverage language and broader protection choices that higher defend companies from future catastrophic occasions.
The voluntary dismissal of the Erie COVID-19 MDL might mark the top of this specific battle, however the broader struggle for honest and complete insurance coverage protection continues. As at all times, we’ll preserve advocating for policyholders’ rights and sharing insights on these essential points by way of this weblog.
Thought For The Day
A lot of the essential issues on the earth have been completed by individuals who have saved on making an attempt when there gave the impression to be no hope in any respect.
—Dale Carnegie
1 In re: Erie COVID-19 Enterprise Interruption Safety Insurance coverage Litigation, No. 1:21-mc-00001 [Doc. 311] (W.D. Penn. Oct. 24, 2024).
