D.C. Court Finds in Favor of Insurer in Business Interruption and COVID-19 Case
Although the Judge found that there was no 'direct physical loss' for COVID-19 closures, the decision comes with some limitations.
August 17, 2020 at 12:00 AM
Thank you for sharing!
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Superior Court of D.C. sided with an insurance company, finding that a typical property insurance policy does not provide business interruption coverage for losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting public shutdowns. The case is Rose’s 1, LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 2020 CA 002424 B, D.C. Super.
This premium content is locked for
FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation subscribers.
Request a Free Trial today to enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.
Trusted, quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].
Get Answers Directly From the FC&S Experts
Submit your coverage interpretation question to the editors of FC&S for quick and reliable information.