Superior Court Affirms Award of Delay Damages Where Trial Court Carved Out The Time Period of The Covid-19 Pandemic

In the case of Heffelfinger v. Shen, No. 681 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. July 21, 2025 Murray, J., King, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s entry of a judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $11.4 million in a claim by a Plaintiff that the medical Defendants failed to diagnose or treat the Plaintiff’s oral cancer.

Of note, on appeal, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not err in imposing an award of delay damages where the trial court expressly stated that its award in this regard did not include the COVID-19 judicial emergency period in mid-2020. 

In addition to affirming the trial court's award of delay damages, the Superior Court went on to note that, regardless, the COVID-10 pandemic and the ensuing judicial emergency did not serve to diminish the rights of Plaintiff to be made whole or create an unjust windfall in favor of Defendant tortfeasors.

The court otherwise held on appeal that the Plaintiff’s evidence at trial amply supported the jury’s award of over $11.4 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

The Superior Court otherwise affirmed the trial court’s decision in concluding that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 6, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Nick Fewings on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Finding that No Coverage Existed Related to a COVID-19 Shutdown of a Business

In a non-precedential decision issued by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of The Scranton Club v. Tuscarora Wayne Mut. Group, No. 238 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Jan. 27, 2025 Panella, P.J., Olson, J., and Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all claims filed by The Scranton Club and found that no coverage existed to the COVID shut down of the Plaintiff’s business.  

The affirmed trial court Opinion was written by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackwanna County Court of Common Pleas.  The Tort Talk Blog post on Judge Nealon's Opinion, which contains a link to that decision can be found at this LINK.

In this case, the Superior Court followed the precedent set forth in the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on similar issues in the case of Ungarean v. CNA & Valley Forge Ins. Co., 323 A.3d 593 (Pa. 2024).

The Superior Court in this case found that the trial court properly ruled that The Scranton Club did not allege any facts to establish that it incurred a “direct physical loss of or damage to property” as required to establish coverage under the policy. The court noted that, given that there was nothing that required restoration of The Scranton Club’s property as a result of the COVID shut down, there is no coverage to be provided under the insurance policy at issue.

The Superior Court noted that it also continued to affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for civil authority coverage. The court noted that, to assert a claim for the civil authority coverage under the policy at issue, the civil authority action prohibiting access to the premises must have been in response to “damage” caused to another property. Given that there is no evidence of any damage to any neighboring properties which resulted in the Plaintiff’s property being shut down, the Superior Court held that the trial court was correct to deny coverage on this ground as well.

Lastly, the Superior Court noted that it was now affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the claim for bad faith given that coverage was not otherwise available under the policy at issue.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Try Eagles Try

In the case of Philadelphia Eagles Limited Partnership v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-01776-MMB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Baylson, J.), the court denied a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Plaintiff, Philadelphia Eagles, relative to the court’s previous decision to dismiss its Complaint in this coverage action related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, Philadelphia Eagles, LP, asserted that it was forced to shut down or modify operations for its various insured properties due to the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly sustained financial losses as a result. The Defendant insurance carrier had denied coverage under the terms of the policy.

The Plaintiff sought a declaration that its losses were covered by the Defendant’s policy and that the Defendant was estopped from arguing that communicable diseases could not trigger coverage under the policy requiring a physical loss or damage to property to implicate coverage. In its previous decision, the trial court had followed other Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court decisions to grant the Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss.

Here, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied after the court again found that there mere presence of communicable disease at a business location did not render the property sufficiently dangerous to constitute a physical loss or damage that triggered insurance coverage.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this "LINC."


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Jan. 2, 2025).

Covid-19 Related Claims Against College Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Dantone v. Kings College, No. 3:23-CV-1365 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2024 Munley, J.), the court ruled that Pennsylvania’s prohibition against claims for educational malpractice did not bar the Plaintiff’s COVID-related claims against the Defendant university for converting from in-person to on-line education to the alleged detriment to the Plaintiff.

The court noted that the Plaintiff did not claim that the education was inadequate, but that an in-person college experience was essential to the enrollment bargain.

The court also allowed the Plaintiff to plead unjust enrichment claims at this initial stage of the litigation even though Pennsylvania precludes unjust enrichment claims between parties whose relationship is governed by either an express or implied contract.  The court noted that, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a Plaintiff is entitled to plead in the alternative.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses and Rules in Favor of Insurance Carrier in Covid-19 Business Interruption Coverage Case

In the case of Ungarean v. CNA, No. 12 WAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 26, 2024) (Op. by Brobson, J.), the court addressed issues regarding business interruption coverage in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This case involved a class action that was led by a dental practice which had purchased a commercial property insurance policy from an insurance company, which policy was intended to cover business-related losses.

After the court mandated closures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the insured filed a claim under the policy, which was denied by the insurance company on the grounds that there was no physical damage to the property.

The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the insureds. The trial court had interpreted the policy language to include loss of use of the property as a form of “direct physical loss.”

That trial court decision was affirmed by the Superior Court who also found the policy language at issue was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured.

However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the policy language was unambiguous and required a physical alteration to the insured’s property for the coverage to apply.

The court ruled that the economic losses sustained by the insured due to the government shutdown did not meet this requirement.

As such, the Supreme Court ruled that the insured was not entitled to coverage under the policy. The case was remanded to the Superior Court with instructions for summary judgment to be entered in favor of the insurance company.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Scott B. Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

Superior Court Refuses To Create a General Duty of Care To Prevent the Transmission of Contagious Diseases Such as COVID-19

In the non-precedential case of Reish v. Visiting Angels, No. 2924 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Sept. 21, 2023 Nichols, J., Olson, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Nichols, J.)[Non-precedential], the Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s sustaining Preliminary Objections dismissing a case after finding that there is no general duty of care among the general public to avoid transmitting contagious diseases such as COVID-19.

The court noted that, while medical professionals may owe a duty of care to third persons to advise a patient to take precautions against spreading contagious diseases, that duty does not extend to non-medical laypersons.

The Superior Court noted that negligence cannot be invoked to create a duty where one does not exist in the first place. The court also noted that it was reluctant to create new affirmative duties under the circumstances presented in this case.

The court also noted that the risk of spreading illnesses while providing services to the elderly is a foreseeable risk. The appellate court asserted that to otherwise impose a duty in this regard would require a myriad of precautions without clear guidance from existing law.

Accordingly, the Superior Court noted that it would improper for it to treat COVID-19-related mask mandates as establishing personal liability against individuals.

The court otherwise noted that such policy determinations in this context are generally not within the purview of the judiciary and are best determined by other branches of government.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I thank Attorney James A. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Superior Court Addresses Business Interruption Coverage Case Related to Pandemic Closures

In the case of The Scranton Club v. Tuscarora Wayne Insurance Company, No. 238 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Sept. 12, 2023 Panella, P.J., Olson, J., and Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.) (non-precedential)(Olson, J., Concurring), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s decision sustaining Preliminary Objections filed by Tuscarora Wayne Mutual Group, Inc. regarding business interruption coverage issues arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic governmental closings of businesses.

In this matter, the Scranton Club was seeking a declaration that its insurance policy provided coverage for the losses sustained, including business income, during the pandemic.

In the time since the trial court’s decision was handed down, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held in the case of Ungarean v. CNA that the mere loss of the ability to use one’s property could constitute “direct physical loss of damage” to the property for purposes of business interruption insurance claims based upon governmental required closures during the pandemic.

It is parenthetically noted that, on July 13, 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Ungarean case, as well as another COVID-19 business interruption case with a contrary result, in order to decide the split of authority on that coverage issue.

In this case involving the Scranton Club, the Majority of the Superior Court panel affirmed the trial court’s rulings regarding the Virus Exclusion. In that regard, the trial court had denied the carrier’s request to dismiss the case as a matter of law based upon the Virus Exclusion in the policy since the Exclusion did not contain anti-concurrent causation language and, instead, used wording that required the application of an efficient proximate cause or concurrent causation standard. In this regard, the trial court found that the causation issued had to be decided by the jury rather than by the court as a matter of law.

The appellate court in this case involving the Scranton Club also affirmed the trial court’s ruling regarding the civil authority coverage. The trial court had ruled that coverage was not available to the insured under the civil authority coverage since that the required government closures due to the damage condition of neighboring properties, not the insured’s property.

However, based upon the Superior Court’s previous decision in Ungarean, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s holding on the “direct physical loss of damage” issue. 

The trial court had held that there was no business income or building damage coverage based upon that policy provision due to the Scranton Club’s failure to allege any physical loss or damage to its property and its allegation that the virus was never present on the property.  As noted, the trial court had issued its decision based upon precedent that existed at the time that supported the trial court’s decision, with precedent has since changed.

In this case involving the Scranton Club, the Pennsylvania Superior Court re-affirmed its majority ruling in the Ungarean case that a loss of use could constitute “direct physical loss or damage” to property. As noted, this issue is set to be decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Judge Olson can be found HERE.

Carrier Prevails With Court's Dismissal of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

In the case of Brandywine Valley Premier Hospitality Group v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-02221-GEKP (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2023 Pratter, J.), the court ruled that a hotel/restaurant owner was not entitled to property insurance coverage where coverage was predicated on direct physical damage or loss and where the shutdowns required by the COVID-19 pandemic did not amount to any physical damage or loss to the property.

As such, the court granted an insurance company’s Motion to Dismiss

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 (Sept. 14, 2023).

Third Circuit Allows Case To Proceed On College Tuition Refunds Due To COVID-19 Required Virtual Clasess

In the case of Hickey v. University of Pittsburgh, No. 21-2016 (3d. Cir. Aug. 11, 2023), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court erred in part in dismissing students’ complaint for a refund of tuition and fees after their university transition to fully remote instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the students have plausibly alleged that they had an implied contract for on-campus schooling in exchange for their tuitions and fees.

The district court Order was affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  See the Court's related Order HERE.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 14, 2023).

COVID-19 Pandemic Time of Court Closures Is Not To Be Subtracted From Delay Damages Calculation

In the case of Lynch v. Ducasse, No. 3:18-CV-2044 (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2023 Mariani, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion for Delay Damages in a civil litigation matter arising out of injuries the Plaintiff allegedly suffered from the Defendant possession and discharge of handgun.

After the return of a multi-million dollar jury verdict, the Plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to delay damages from September of 2019 through June of 2023.

The Defendant challenged the Plaintiff’s calculation and argued that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting suspension of proceedings in the court, the 472 days during which jury trials were “prohibited” during the pandemic had to be excluded from the delay damages calculation.

Judge Mariani found that the Defendant’s argument was not supported by the language of Pa. R.C.P. 238 or Pennsylvania case law.  In so ruling, Judge Mariani cited to the case of Getting v. Mark Sales & Leasing, 274 A.3d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2022) and other cases relying upon the Getting decision, in which the Pennsylvania state courts have repeatedly ruled that the time of court closures during the COVID-19 pandemic are not to be excluded from the delay damages calculation.

The rationale, according to the Getting decision, is that the delay damages Rule is not just about time but about making a Plaintiff whole relative to the injuries and damages sustained.     

As such, the court granted in this Lynch case granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Delay Damages.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 8, 2023).

Avoid any Delay Damages issues by bringing your case to a close.

Call or Email to Schedule Your Mediation:

DanCummins@CumminsLaw.net

(570) 319-5899

Denial of COVID-19 Business Losses Claim Upheld

In the case of URBN US Retail LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 21-4807 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2023 Diamond J.), the court granted a Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 coverage action brought by the insured.

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).

Plaintiff Allowed to Proceed With Claims in Premises Liability Case That Decedent Passed Away From Exposure to Covid-19 Virus During Post-Accident Treatment

In the case of Corter v. Wal-Mart, No. CV-22-00100 (C.P. Lyc. Co. April 11, 2023 Linhardt, J.), the court sustained in part and denied in part various Preliminary Objections filed by Defendant Wal-Mart in a case involving allegations relative to a slip and fall matter that allegedly resulted in injuries that allegedly led to the Plaintiff’s death.

More specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the decedent sustained multiple fractures during the course of his slip and fall injuries, as well as traumatic brain injuries, all of which required hospitalization. It was further alleged that the decedent was exposed to the COVID-19 virus during his hospitalization and in-patient treatment which allegedly caused and/or contributed to his death.

In one of its Preliminary Objections, Wal-Mart sought to strike, as scandalous and impertinent, allegations in the Complaint related to the Plaintiff’s alleged exposure to the COVID-19 virus during his post-incident treatment.

The court noted that the validity of these types of allegations turned on the issue of whether or not the Plaintiff had stated illegally cognizable claim of negligence against Wal-Mart. The court noted that, if the decedent’s death could not be attributed to Wal-Mart’s negligence as a matter of law, then the allegations that the decedent died, in part, due to exposure of the COVID-19 virus would be inappropriate and immaterial to the claims presented.

Judge Linhardt noted that, in this early stage of the litigation, the court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that Wal-Mart’s alleged negligence was not the legal cause of the decedent’s eventual death from COVID. As such, the court found that, at least at this stage of the litigation, allegations regarding the circumstances of the decedent’s death were neither scandalous nor impertinent.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Gary L. Weber, who is the Editor of the Lycoming Reporter and a member of the Williamsport, Pennsylvania law firm of Mitchell Gallagher, for bringing this case to my attention. 

ARTICLE: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on the Law

 

Here is a LINK to my article published in the Pennsylvania Bar Association's March/April 2023 issue of The Pennsylvania Lawyer entitled "The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on the Law."

The article outlines the changes in Pennsylvania law and litigation as a result of the pandemic, some of which changes appear to be here to stay.

I send thanks to Patricia Graybill, the Editor of The Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine for selecting this article for publication.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Denials of Coverage in Covid-19 Business Loss Matters

In the case of Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv., LLC, No. 20-3124 (3d Cir. Jan. 6, 2023) (Op. by Chagres, C.J.), the court, in a consolidated appeal, found that the district courts properly found for the insurance companies in Plaintiff businesses’ actions for coverage for COVID-19 business losses under commercial property insurance policies.

The rationale behind the decisions, in part, was that the Plaintiffs did not suffer a “physical loss of or damage to” property.

Because the Court made the above initial finding it felt that it did not need to address the arguments raised by the carriers relative to any Virus Exclusions contained in the policies.    

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 24, 2023).

Fly Eagles Fly

In the case of Philadelphia Eagles, LP v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-01776-MMB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2022 Baylson J.), the court denied a carrier’s Motion to Dismiss in a case involving the Philadelphia Eagles seeking coverage from their carriers for financial losses associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental closure orders.  The Eagles had a $1 Billion Dollar policy in this regard.

The carrier moved to dismiss and asserted exclusions in the policies.

The court ruled that, due to the unsettled status of Pennsylvania law on the issues presented, it was appropriate to deny the Motion to Dismiss and to allow discovery limited to the exchange of pertinent documents.

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 (Jan. 5, 2023).

In A Case of First Impression Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules Against COVID-19 Related Business Interrupt Coverage Claim

In the case of MacMiles v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 1100 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Nov. 30, 2022) (en banc), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed, as an issue of first impression, whether the Plaintiff insured tavern was entitled to business interruption coverage under its policy of insurance related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Opinion, the insurance company denied the claim based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s commercial property itself did not suffer any physical damage.

In the MacMiles case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that it was reaching “the same result as the near-universal majority of courts to have addressed this issue: the policy does not cover mere loss of use of commercial property unaccompanied by physical alteration or other condition immanent in the property that renders the property itself unusable or uninhabitable."

As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in this case reversed a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the insured and directed that judgment on the pleadings be granted in favor of the insurance company.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Here is a  LINK to the Concurring Opinion.

On The Same Day Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules in Favor of COVID-19 Related Business Interruption Coverage

In the case of Ungarean v. CNA and Valley Forge Ins. Co., No. 490 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Nov. 30, 2022) (en banc), the court ruled in favor of a Plaintiff on a business interruption coverage claim related to business losses suffered when the business was closed by governmental orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Opinion, this case involved a dental practice.

In this matter, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a lower court’s finding that the Plaintiff dental practice’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the coverage issues should be granted.

The lower court and the appellate court found that the dental practice was entitled to business interruption coverage because COVID-19 and the related governmental orders had caused the Plaintiff to suffer a direct physical loss of his dental practice, which circumstances were found to be within the scope of coverage provided by the CNA policy.

The trial and appellate court also agreed that the exclusions relied upon by CNA were not applicable. Those exclusions included the contamination, consequential loss, fungi, wet rot, dry rot, microbes, and the acts of decisions, ordinance or law exclusions.

Of note, in a footnote 3 the Pennsylvania Superior Court pointed to a decision by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in the case of SWB Yankees v. CNA Fin. Corp., 2021 WL 3468995 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2021) as confirming another way that insureds may demonstrate that they have satisfied the “direct physical loss or damage” to cover property in order to secure coverage.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE

Carrier Prevails In Another Business Interruption Coverage Case Arising Out of COVID-19 Closures

In the case of The Foundation for Indiana University of Pennsylvania v. Utica Nat’l Ins. Group, No. 2:22-CV-01126-AJS (W.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2022 Schwab, J.), the court ruled that, given the language of a business insurance policy’s virus exclusion, and based upon the facts as pled by the Plaintiffs, the court ruled that business interruption coverage would be excluded for any of the Plaintiffs’ alleged economic losses and countered when the four (4) dormitories on the college campus were ordered to be vacated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moreover, the court found that the Plaintiff’s claims failed to trigger coverage under the policy at issue because the Plaintiffs’ dormitories did not sustain a direct physical loss of, or damage to, their actual structures.

Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the insurance carrier on the Plaintiff’s claim for a declaration of a finding of coverage and on the related claims for breach of contract and bad faith.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Mark A. Martini of the Pittsburgh law firm of Robb Leonard Mulvihill, LLP for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Tim Mossholder on www.pexels.com.

Carrier Wins Another COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage Case

In the case of In Re Erie COVID-19 Bus. Interruption Prot. Ins. Litig., No. 1:21-mc-1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2022 Hornak, J.), the court granted the Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ action for coverage for COVID-19 business losses under their commercial property insurance.

The court found that the Plaintiffs did not show the required direct “physical loss or damage to” their properties.

The court additionally found that the policy’s virus exclusion provisions also applied to prevent coverage.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 3, 2022).

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Declaratory Judgment Action Over Coverage for Covid-19 Shutdowns

In the case of Reconstructive Orthopeadic Assoc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 21-4003 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2022 Savage, J.), the court granted a Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s claims for insurance coverage for business losses due to COVID-19 shutdown Orders.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s claims in this regard fail because the Plaintiff did not allege any direct physical loss of or damages to its properties.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the communicable disease provision since it did not show an inability of access to the facilities due to a government Order issued in response to the discovery or threat of COVID-19 at the Plaintiff’s property.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 20, 2022).