October 26, 2020

Volume X, Number 300

Advertisement

October 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies.

AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage.

Although AXA first signaled that it would appeal the ruling, it now has agreed to pay the claims involved in the lawsuit as well as other coronavirus claims involving similar policies, acknowledging that the insurance policy wording at issue is ambiguous. AXA’s admission that its policy is ambiguous is important as ambiguous policy language is generally construed in favor of coverage, AXA’s decision to pay is the correct one.

Policyholders in the United States have been advancing similar arguments premised on broad coverage grants and ambiguous policy language. The French court’s ruling, along with AXA’s admissions concerning the policy language, provides additional support for policyholders’ view that COVID-related losses can be covered under standard commercial property insurance policies.

The ruling should also serve as a reminder that a policyholder should not simply accept an insurer’s coverage denial without conducting a detailed analysis of its insurance program by experienced coverage counsel and forcefully pursuing rights and claims under insurance contracts.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 156
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Sergio F. Oehninger Insurance Coverage Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Washington, DC
Partner

Sergio represents companies in complex insurance coverage and bad faith disputes nationally and internationally.

Sergio counsels multinational corporations on insurance coverage and risk management issues arising in various industries – including financial services, retail, energy, technology, real estate, construction, and hospitality.

His insurance coverage advice focuses on risks such as: cyber and data breach; commercial general liability; directors and officers; professional liability; employment practices; property and casualty; business interruption;...

202-955-1854
Daniel Hentschel Complex Business Litigation Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Miami, FL
Associate

Daniel’s practice focuses on complex business litigation, with an emphasis on insurance coverage litigation and government investigations.

With experience in the areas of insurance litigation, bad faith and government investigations, Daniel represents corporate entities in complex litigation disputes in both federal and state court. Daniel’s practice focuses on counseling clients on insurance coverage disputes arising out of cyber policies, crime policies, commercial general liability (CGL) policies, professional liability/errors and omissions (E&O) policies, and directors and officers liability (D&O) policies.

Prior to joining the firm, Daniel represented clients in diverse industries, working to resolve their disputes through the most effective and efficient means possible, from informal negotiations to mediation, arbitration and litigation. During law school, Daniel participated in the Innocence Project. He is admitted to practice in Florida, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Representative Experience

  • Successfully negotiated settlements involving multi-million dollar insurance disputes through mediation and alternative dispute resolution.
  • Represented corporation in federal law suit involving insurance coverage for claims of wrongful death.
  • Litigated insurance coverage disputes arising out of construction defect claims under commercial general liability policies.
  • Successfully argued dispositive motions in both federal and state court in matters involving insurance coverage for catastrophic injuries.
305-810-2469
Advertisement
Advertisement