Restaurants whose operations have been shut down due to the coronavirus crisis are looking to their business interruption or business income insurance policies for relief, and have found resistance from insurance companies paying these claims.
As a general matter, in order to trigger coverage those policies require (1) direct physical loss or damage; (2) to covered property: (3) arising from a covered peril; and (4) resulting in the suspension of the business’ operations.
In cases where coverage is triggered, an insured business may be entitled to recover the net income it would have received but for the interruption and its operating expenses during the time its operations have been suspended.
Given the number of restaurants affected by the current crisis, courts will be asked to construe these policies in light of the unique risks posed by the pandemic. Several restaurant groups across the country have filed lawsuits against their insurance carriers with regard to their business insurance coverage. Some restaurant owners also formed a nonprofit, the Business Interruption Group, to push insurance companies to cover these claims.
Chief among the issues courts must decide in addressing these claims is whether businesses whose operations have been shut down during the crisis can demonstrate “direct physical loss or damage”. A number of cases from outside California have held that contamination of business premises – by chemical agents, including gasoline and ammonia, and in one case bacteria – could satisfy this policy requirement. And there is an older California case which held that the requirement of “direct physical loss or damage” would be satisfied where the location was sufficiently impaired to render it unhabitable or unfit for its customary use.
There is no definitive guidance from the California appellate courts about whether the financial and business dislocation occasioned by the kind of viral pandemic currently underway satisfies the “direct physical loss or damage” prong typically required under business interruption policies.
Importantly, the physical loss or damage must be “to the covered property” – typically to the business premises itself. The case law is unclear whether this means that an insured must prove that its premises have in fact been contaminated by the bacteria or virus or whether an insured’s loss of use of its business premises because of the pandemic will suffice.
In order to secure coverage, an insured must also demonstrate that the physical loss or damage must arise from a “covered peril”. In some cases, the definition of “covered peril” defaults to “direct physical loss” – tying into the first threshold that an insured must cross. In other cases, a loss arising from a bacterial or viral contamination may be expressly excluded. In all cases, the specific policy language will control.
The last prong is suspension. To trigger business interruption coverage, an insured must demonstrate a “complete suspension” of business operations, not just a slowdown in operations. In view of the government-ordered directives about the closing of restaurants, bars and theaters, this prong should be satisfied in the present circumstances.
Finally, some business interruption policies offer coverage for business losses occasioned by action of a “civil authority”, such as a city or state, which prohibits access to a business’ premises. While the exact phrasing of this coverage will vary from policy to policy, some policy forms require that this coverage is activated only if a covered cause of loss cases damage to property other than the insured’s business premises. This form of coverage would come into play, for example, if a building adjacent to the insured’s premises burned down and emergency vehicles blocked access for a time to the insured’s premises, thereby temporarily shutting down its business operations.
In all cases, restaurant owners should
- review their existing portfolio of insurance policies with a qualified professional to ascertain whether there are opportunities to make a claim for reimbursement of lost business income;
- maintain up to date operating records so that they are able to demonstrate a documented record of historical net income and ongoing operating expenses; and
- evaluate whether their current coverage package is adequate in both scope and limits for future contingencies.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
- Partner
Pooja S. Nair is a business litigator and problem solver with a focus on the food and beverage sector. She advises food and beverage clients, including restaurant groups, mid-market food brands, and food manufacturers on a ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014