This is what I love (and hate) about the insurance biz: to paraphrase a former POTUS, it depends on what the meaning of "covered loss" is.
Hunh?
Well, last week we posted what we thought was the definitive answer to the question of whether one's Business Interruption coverage would be triggered by the current Pandemic:
"In the event of my absence, if anyone for commercial lines calls and asks if there is any business income coverage due to their business shutting down during the Coronavirus outbreak, the answer is "No"."
And that, it seemed (at the time, at least) was that.
But maybe not:
That is, maybe BI cover does extend, even absent a "direct, physical loss."
The article notes, for example that if "a property has been contaminated by an infected person, or because COVID-19 is in the airspace or on surfaces, this will likely constitute direct physical damage." I would argue that this alone doesn't seem to reach the threshold, but then, I'm not the judge or the claims adjustor.
And, of course, that particular cite pertained to a New Jersey Appellate Court decision, so its relevance in other jurisdictions is up for grabs.
And there's this:
"Depending on the circumstances, the governing law, and the applicable policy’s language, they may very well be wrong. By way of example, some policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” property. “Loss” and “damage” are not synonymous and may require separate analysis."
Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
As always, consult with your own agent about how your policy may (or may not) handle this.
Hunh?
Well, last week we posted what we thought was the definitive answer to the question of whether one's Business Interruption coverage would be triggered by the current Pandemic:
"In the event of my absence, if anyone for commercial lines calls and asks if there is any business income coverage due to their business shutting down during the Coronavirus outbreak, the answer is "No"."
And that, it seemed (at the time, at least) was that.
But maybe not:
"By way of example, some policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” property. “Loss” and “damage” are not synonymous and may require separate analysis. Such wording could arguably trigger coverage where there is a loss of the premise’s use (even if the property is not physically damaged)."
That is, maybe BI cover does extend, even absent a "direct, physical loss."
The article notes, for example that if "a property has been contaminated by an infected person, or because COVID-19 is in the airspace or on surfaces, this will likely constitute direct physical damage." I would argue that this alone doesn't seem to reach the threshold, but then, I'm not the judge or the claims adjustor.
And, of course, that particular cite pertained to a New Jersey Appellate Court decision, so its relevance in other jurisdictions is up for grabs.
And there's this:
"Depending on the circumstances, the governing law, and the applicable policy’s language, they may very well be wrong. By way of example, some policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” property. “Loss” and “damage” are not synonymous and may require separate analysis."
Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
As always, consult with your own agent about how your policy may (or may not) handle this.
Posts
