January 21, 2022

Volume XII, Number 21

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 20, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Florida Court Upholds Coverage for Doctor Office’s COVID-19 Insurance

In another win for policyholders, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 24, 2020 denied Sentinel Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the policyholder doctor office’s claim for COVID-19 related business interruption coverage.  Urogynecology Specialist of Florida LLC v. Sentinel  Insurance Company Ltd., Case No.: 6:20-cv-1174-Orl-22EJK (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2020). The court engaged in a true analysis of the policy’s virus exclusion language, finding that the insurer had not met its burden of showing that its proposed reading of the exclusionary language is the only reasonable interpretation.

The policyholder was forced to close its business following Florida’s declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sentinel denied the policyholder’s claim for business interruption coverage under its property policy. The policyholder sought a declaration of coverage in Florida state court, and the action was subsequently removed to the Middle District of Florida where Sentinel filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of the policy’s virus exclusion. The court denied the motion to dismiss, declining to decide coverage at the motion to dismiss stage.

Notably, the court stated that aspects of the policy arguably made it ambiguous.[1] The virus exclusion states that the insurer will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by the presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of “fungi, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.” The court remarked, however, that denying losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”

Moreover, the court was not persuaded by Sentinel’s citation to cases upholding similar virus exclusions, finding them distinguishable from COVID-19: “Sentinel cites cases dealing with pollution exclusions and sewage backups, damage caused by mold, and claims resulting from illness or disease, all of which fell under policy exclusions. Importantly, none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society—a distinction this Court considers significant.”

Finally, the court stated that there is no binding case law on the issue of the interplay between the COVID-19 pandemic and the standard virus exclusion to merit dismissal.

This decision rightfully rejects the arguments raised by many insurers, which have attempted to avoid their coverage responsibilities for COVID-19 related claims by reading virus exclusions broadly, contrary to Florida law.

[1] The court noted that the insurer’s failure to provide the court with the full policy made it impossible to make a decision regarding the plain language of the policy.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 282
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Lorelie S. Masters DC Partner Insurance Lawyer
Partner

A nationally recognized insurance coverage litigator, Lorie handles all aspects of complex, commercial litigation and arbitration.

Lorie has advised clients on a wide range of liability coverages, including insurance for environmental, employment, directors and officers, fiduciary, property damage, cyber, and other liabilities. She also handles various types of first-party property insurance claims, including claims under boiler and machinery, business-interruption, contingent business-interruption, extra expense, disability and other related coverages.

Lorie has handled and...

202-955-1851
Meagan R. Cyrus Insurance Litigation Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Miami, FL
Associate

Meagan’s practice focuses on complex insurance coverage disputes and bad faith litigation.

Meagan has extensive experience representing individual and commercial policyholders in insurance coverage and bad faith disputes arising out of all types of policies, including commercial general liability, professional liability, directors and officers, builders risk, homeowners, and commercial property.

Prior to joining the firm, Meagan regularly represented a Fortune 500 Company ranked homebuilder in numerous insurance recovery proceedings, advising on risk transfer and insurance...

305-810-2553
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement