In so ruling, the court relied, in part, upon a virus exclusion contained in the policy.
The court also found that the civil authority coverage requirements under the policy were not met.
The court also noted that the Plaintiff did not suffer any direct physical loss or damage to its premises in order to meet the requirements of another policy provider for coverage.
Anyone wishing to review this detailed Order without Opinion issued by the Court may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Peter J. Speaker of the Harrisburg, PA office of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.