In this matter, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit for coverage for COVID-19 losses stemming from the closing of its stores and the adding of safety facilities.
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to show the “direct physical loss or damage” required by the policy language in order to trigger coverage.
The court additionally noted that the contamination exclusion provision served to bar coverage as well.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 20, 2023).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.