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).

Eastern Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

In the case of Fuel Univ. City, LLC v. Allied Ins. Co. of Am., No. 2:20-cv-04478-CMR, (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2021 Rufe, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court ruled that a business was not entitled to business interruption coverage for losses incurred during shutdown orders issued by the government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, Fuel University City, LLC, owned and operated a delicatessen that was covered by an “all-risk” commercial insurance policy.   

The court noted that, under the insurance policy at issue, coverage was only available for losses incurred for a direct physical loss or damage to the covered property, and the pandemic had caused no such specific damages.   

Based upon this ruling, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.   

Another Covid-19 Related Claim for Business Interruption Coverage Dismissed

In the case of Star Buick v. Sentry Ins., No. 5:20-CV-03023 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2021 Leeson, J.), the court entered a declaratory judgment for the carrier after finding that the insurance policy providing coverage for direct physical loss, which phrase was not defined in the policy, did not provide coverage for loss of business income to an auto dealership due to the suspension of business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court additionally found that the civil authority provision in all-risks policy did not provide coverage to the auto dealership given that the business was not denied access to the property as a result of damage sustained to another property.

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


Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges, Pennsylvania Bar News (June 28, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Kaique Rocha from Pexels.com

Carrier's Denial of Claim for Business Interruption Coverage Upheld

In the case Isaac’s At Spring Ridge, LLP v. MMG Ins. Co., No. CI-20-03613 (C.P. Lanc. Co. March 2, 2021 Sponaugle, J.), the court issued an Order granting the carrier’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in a coverage action arising out of the Plaintiff’s claim of business income losses under an all-risk commercial property policy involving a restaurant that was forced to modify, but not close, its operation due to the Commonwealth’s COVID-19 Orders.

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.

Dental Practice Not Permitted to Recover Under All-Risk Policy Relative to COVID-19 Pandemic

In the case of Brian Handel, D.M.D., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 20-3198 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2020 Bartle, J.), the court found that the Plaintiff, which was a Pennsylvania dental practice, had failed to plead plausible facts that the restrictions placed upon the practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused damage or loss in any physical way to its property so as to trigger coverage under its “all-risk” insurance policy with the Defendant. 

The court noted that the dental office had been required to close its practice under the governmental orders related to the pandemic. Thereafter, the dental practice made a claim against the insurance company under the “all-risk” insurance policy for claims of business income loss and extra expenses due to the interruption of the dental practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The dental practice filed this declaratory judgment action and a breach of contract. Allstate moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim and this motion was granted.

The court noted that, under the subject insurance policy, Allstate had agreed to pay for “direct physical loss of or damage to covered property…caused by or resulting from any covered cause of loss.”

The policy defined a “covered cause of loss” as a “direct physical loss unless the loss is excluded or limited under Section 1-Property.” 

In response to the Plaintiff’s claims, the District Court noted that the Governor’s order did not require dental offices such as the Plaintiff's office to close completely. Rather, the Plaintiff’s practice was able to remain open for emergency procedures. As such, the court found that the dental practice/property remained inhabitable and usable, albeit in limited ways.

As such, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to plead plausible facts that COVID-19 caused damage or loss in any physical way to the property so as to trigger the coverage.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s claim of coverage pursuant to the Civil Authority Provision of the policy also failed. Under that provision, Allstate was obligated to cover the loss of business income and necessary expenses when a “covered cause of loss” damage property in the immediate area and a civil authority prohibited access to the covered property.

The court found no facts pled of any direct physical loss of prohibited access to the property. As such, the court found that the Plaintiff could not sustain a claim for coverage under the Civil Authority Provision of the policy based upon the COVID Pandemic.

The court went on to note that, even if the Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts for physical damage or loss as a result of the pandemic, the Plaintiff’s claims were still barred by the virus exclusion provision of the policy. Under that exclusion, it was provided that the carrier would not cover loss or damage if caused, either directly or indirectly by “any virus, bacterium, or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical stress, illness, or disease.” 

In the end, the District Court granted the carrier’s Motion to Dismiss.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 24, 2020).