Connect with us

Massachusetts

Massachusetts High Court Reheats Recipe in Restaurants' COVID-19 Insurance Denial

Published

on

Massachusetts High Court Reheats Recipe in Restaurants' COVID-19 Insurance Denial


In a ruling against an upscale restaurant chain, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed its 2022 ruling that the COVID-19 virus does not trigger business interruption insurance because it does not cause “direct physical loss or damage.”

Davio’s restaurant chain sought to recover under its all-risk business policy issued by Strathmore Insurance Co. for businesses losses it suffered due to service restrictions and remediation efforts necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic

Strathmore, a subsidiary of Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co., denied Davio’s claims on the basis that the loss of business income was not “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property,” as required under the policy. Davio’s filed suit and a Superior Court judge granted Strathmore’s motion to dismiss. The restaurants then appealed from the judgment of dismissal.

Strathmore was the defendant in the precedent-setting 2022 case in which it was sued by a different Boston-area restaurant group, Verveine Corp. The Verveine ruling was the first by a state supreme court on COVID-19-related business interruption claims filed against insurers across the country, the majority of which insurers have won.

Advertisement

Noting the similarities between the Verveine and Davio’s cases, the Supreme Judicial Court said it discerned “no reason to distinguish ” the Davio’s case from the Verveine case two years ago and affirmed that ruling.

Massachusetts: First State Top Court Gives Industry a Win in Covid-19 Claims Case

Davio’s claimed that the virus became physically present at its restaurants and the presence of the virus caused it to take “extraordinary measures,” which included “closing certain operations and services, substantially modifying others, restricting access to many of the properties, enforcing physical distancing, and undertaking extensive active efforts to repair, restore, and remediate the facilities.”

The restaurant firm also maintained that some surfaces and objects retained residual infectious virus even after cleaning, and “no amount of cleaning could prevent aerosolized infectious particles from attaching to surfaces after cleaning.”

However, the restaurants were able to continue operating “at reduced levels” during the COVID-19 pandemic. Davio’s locations include Boston’s Seaport, Foxboro, Lynnfield, Braintree and Chestnut Hill.

Advertisement

The high court faced the same question as it had addressed in Verveine — whether there was any “direct physical loss of or damage to” property — and again concluded that those words from the insurance policy require a physical alteration of the property and the COVID-19 virus did not physically alter or affect any of the insured property.

On the question of what constitutes a physical alteration of property, Verveine again provided the guidance that “property has not experienced physical loss or damage in the first place unless there needs to be active repair or remediation measures to correct the claimed damage or the business must move to a new location.”

Thus, the “evanescent presence of a harmful airborne substance that will quickly dissipate on its own, or surface-level contamination that can be removed by simple cleaning, does not physically alter or affect property.” In contrast, the “saturation, ingraining, or infiltration of a substance into the materials of a building or persistent pollution of a premises requiring active remediation efforts” does constitute a physical alteration.

The court noted that similar distinctions have been noted in COVID-19 insurance cases across the country and courts have reached the same conclusion “even when presented with detailed allegations regarding how the COVID-19 virus affects the air and surfaces around it.”

In Verveine, the Supreme Judicial Court assumed that the virus was physically present in the restaurants but explained that the suspension of business at the restaurants was “not in any way attributable to a direct physical effect on the plaintiffs’ property that can be described as loss or damage. As demonstrated by the restaurants’ continuing ability to provide takeout and other services, there were not physical effects on the property itself.”

Advertisement

Davio’s specifically alleged that “there have been hundreds (if not thousands) of infected guests on-site since the pandemic’s outset.” But the high court found that these allegations do not show that the virus physically altered or affected the insured property in any way. Rather, they show the “evanescent presence of a harmful airborne substance,” and that there was no direct physical loss or damage to property.

Related:

Topics
Massachusetts
COVID-19

Interested in Covid 19?

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

Advertisement



Source link

Massachusetts

Reward offered by family in search for missing Massachusetts man

Published

on

Reward offered by family in search for missing Massachusetts man


Family desperate for man who went missing in Plymouth after leaving hospital to “come home”

Advertisement


Family desperate for man who went missing in Plymouth after leaving hospital to “come home”

02:32

Advertisement

PLYMOUTH – The family of a missing man from Plymouth is now offering a $5,000 reward for any information that leads to his safe return.

Rodney Riviello, 69, was last seen on June 18 near Beth Israel Plymouth Hospital on Sandwich Road after he was discharged. His family said he was discharged without his wallet or phone and they weren’t notified.

Rodney Riviello, 69, has been missing since 11:15 a.m. on Tuesday.

Riviello family

Advertisement


Riviello suffers from dementia-like symptoms after several mini-strokes. He’s 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs 190 pounds. He was last seen wearing a collared blue-striped shirt, blue shorts and a New York Yankees hat. He lives in Manomet and has connections to Boxboro and Provincetown, as well as Clyde, New York and Brooklyn.

Anyone who has seen Riviello or has any information on his whereabouts is asked to contact Plymouth Police.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Don’t mess with Mass.: How the state became a center of post-Dobbs resistance – The Boston Globe

Published

on

Don’t mess with Mass.: How the state became a center of post-Dobbs resistance – The Boston Globe


Foster has made little effort to hide her efforts to circumvent restrictive laws passed in other states since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. She doesn’t need to: She is operating with the full support of Massachusetts government officials, and even has a former attorney general on call in case anyone challenges her. Which may explain why she has not received a single death threat, summons, or cease and desist letter.

“We are part of the formal Massachusetts health care system,” says Foster, whose affable and unpretentious manner offers little hint of a resume that includes a Rhodes Scholarship and degrees from Stanford University and Harvard Medical School. “There is an incredible kind of legitimacy that comes with that.”

Since September, Angel Foster and her team at the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project have shipped abortion drugs to more than 3,000 pregnant women, 95 percent of whom live where abortion has been banned. Kayla Bartkowski For The Boston Globe

The MAP, one of only four domestic services of its kind openly operating in the United States, is currently shipping abortion medications to all 50 states. And it is the only one designed to operate as a fully integrated part of a state health care system. It is just one example of the way Massachusetts is taking its defense of abortion rights national.

Advertisement

In the two years since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision Women’s Health decision, the national news has been dominated by stories documenting the transformation of states like Mississippi, Texas, and Missouri, which have pushed through a raft of new laws to ban or severely limit abortion. But Massachusetts has quietly undergone an equal and opposite metamorphosis, emerging as the legal, spiritual, and intellectual center of the post-Dobbs resistance, with Harvard legal scholars and state agencies filing amicus Supreme Court briefs, new think tanks documenting the changing situation on the ground, a state Legislature instructing college health centers to hand out abortion pills, a department of public health spending millions to support abortion access and security, and a governor and attorney general who have vowed to use their offices to fight back.

The state is currently sitting on a stockpile of more than 15,000 doses of the abortion drug mifepristone, ordered up by the governor in case the Supreme Court bans it, and is home to a new “Reproductive Justice Unit,” tasked by the attorney general with monitoring new legislation and antiabortion tactics bubbling up from red states and helping to coordinate policies to counter them.

“I will do everything I can to protect access to care here in Massachusetts, and help nationally to ensure that women have access to medicated abortions,” Governor Maura Healey told the Globe. “People should not underestimate the very serious threat that is posed to women’s health by this extremist agenda.”

The state’s current burst of activism began in 2020, even before the Dobbs decision, catalyzed by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and a growing awareness of what was coming. In December of that year, the Legislature passed laws strengthening state constitutional protections for abortion, lowering the age of required parental consent from 18 to 16, and allowing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities.

After Dobbs came legislation requiring state universities to offer medicated abortions on campus. The state also passed a first of its kind “Shield Law,” engineered to protect local telehealth abortion providers like The MAP from out-of-state prosecution by categorizing all virtual encounters with patients in states that restrict abortion, or gender-affirming care, as local. These policies, along with the rise of telehealth as ready option for patients, have had a potent impact.

Advertisement

Since the 2022 Dobbs decision, the number of abortions in the state has risen 20 percent, from about 1,600 a month to an average of roughly 2,000 a month, according to Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, who co-chairs the Society for Family Planning’s WeCount project. Last year about 6 percent of those abortions were for people who came from out of state, double the percentage prior to Dobbs. The numbers are not nearly as high as those seen in “surge” states like New Mexico and Illinois, which border states where abortions have been severely restricted or banned. And they don’t include medicated abortions provided by those operating here under the Shield Law. The MAP’s numbers alone, which until recently weren’t officially categorized by DPH statisticians as occurring in state, would add another 500 abortions a month, or 25 percent, to the state totals.

Angel Foster goes through bins of boxes ready to ship. Since September, Angel Foster and her team at the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access project have shipped abortion drugs to more than 3,000 pregnant women, 95 percent of whom live in those states and others where abortion has been banned.Kayla Bartkowski For The Boston Globe

Sitting behind a desk in her cramped office on the second floor of a co-working space, a tower of cardboard boxes containing abortion pills worth about $100,000 teetering atop a supply cabinet nearby, The MAP’s Foster predicts the numbers of abortion pills shipped from Massachusetts to other states would explode in the months ahead, as word spreads that safe, medical abortions are easily accessible through the internet.

Since 2022, six other states have followed the lead of Massachusetts and passed Shield Laws with similar language, including Washington, Colorado, Vermont, New York, California, and Maine. There are now four services operating in Shield Law states that ship abortion pills to states with abortion restrictions, according to Elisa Wells, co-director and cofounder of Plan C, a think tank and advocacy group established in 2015.

Supporting the efforts of Shield Law providers like The MAP, Governor Healey says, is in the state’s interest because it helps prevent local abortion providers from being overwhelmed by women from out of state. But it’s also, she believes, a question of doing what’s right. Leaving abortion policies up to states, she said, is dangerous.

“Forcing women who are the victims of rape or incest to carry a fetus to term is outrageous,” she said. “Forcing women who are dealing with complications from pregnancy that put themselves at risk and in danger of dying is outrageous. That’s where leaving it up to states has gotten us.”

Advertisement

Foster considers it a small miracle that she has not received a legal challenge of any kind, or even a single threatening letter, from one of those star-cluttered states on her map. She attributes that to a focus by abortion opponents on the US Supreme Court, which dealt the effort to limit access to medical abortion a significant setback on June 13, when it ruled the coalition of antiabortion groups who filed suit lacked standing to challenge the way the FDA is regulating the drug mifepristone.

The morning of the decision, Foster was ebullient, expressing her relief and making plans to pop a bottle of bubbly after work. Also apprehensive.

“We’re really, really proud of the care and of the service, but worried about what’s going to happen when we get cease and desist letters, when there are subpoenas, when there are lawsuits,” she said. “They’re coming, I’m sure.”

Abortion opponents say Foster is right to worry. Kyleen Wright, president of Texans for Life, called the actions of Shield Law providers like Foster “reckless” “dangerous,” and “so terribly wrong.” She accused supporters of medicated abortions of downplaying the risks and placing the lives of young women in jeopardy.

“If your doctors are in Massachusetts, and they’re surprised that we haven’t come after them, you might just tell them to hold onto their hats,” Wright told the Globe. “We are working on some more innovative and creative ways of putting a stop to this.”

Advertisement

Foster knows that if abortion opponents come after her, she’ll have plenty of powerful allies to defend her. Her first call will go to former state attorney general Martha Coakley, The MAP’s pro-bono legal counsel. She can also expect help from the AG’s Reproductive Justice Unit‚ which Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell established last fall. The unit, led by Sapna Khatri, a reproductive rights attorney, is helping coordinate the efforts of the attorney general’s more than 300 attorneys on a wide array of initiatives, and cases.


While she waits for the challenges to arrive, Foster and her colleagues are continuing to grow. Recently, a donor agreed to pony up $500,000 to build a free-standing pharmacy to fill more orders.

Foster came to her passion for safeguarding abortion rights early. A native of Portland, Ore.,, she grew up attending Planned Parenthood rallies with her mother and hearing horror stories from the pre-Roe v. Wade era. One of them involved her mother, who was impregnated by an abusive boyfriend at age 19 and had to travel to Mexico to obtain an abortion.

She has grown used to legally precarious circumstances.

In 2008, she cofounded a Cambridge-based nongovernmental organization to provide abortion access to women in the developing world; she cut her teeth flying to Bangladesh to make bulk purchases of misoprostol, a second drug often used to induce an abortion, and then carrying as many as 30,000 pills at a time into camps on the Thai border for distribution to refugees from Myanmar. She was prepared for the possibility of arrest and deportation. But she long ago decided that, in her line of work, the high stakes justify the risks. Most women who feel they need an abortion, she has learned, will do whatever is necessary to get one, even if that means taking extreme measures that put their health, even their own lives, in jeopardy.

Advertisement

“Somewhere between 8 and 15 percent of maternal mortality globally is directly attributable to unsafe abortions,” said Foster. “It is the cause of maternal mortality that is truly preventable.”

She and her collaborators launched The MAP on Sept. 28, 2023, International Safe Abortion Day, with four clinicians, a community outreach director, and a growing network of donors.

The prescribing process begins when a patient fills out a form online. They are then emailed a link to a questionnaire and consent forms and referred to a licensed clinician in Massachusetts, who determines if the patient is eligible. Then The MAP ships them the pills. Patients are asked to pay a minimum of $5. Though the providers and patients exchange phone numbers, texts, and emails in case there are questions, live interactions are not a requirement.

“It’s really profoundly unsettling to me to think that a girl that’s born today has less rights than her mother and grandmother,” Foster said. “That shouldn’t be allowed to take place just because a state has decided to restrict what was for almost 50 years considered a constitutional and fundamental right.”


Advertisement

Adam Piore can be reached at adam.piore@globe.com.





Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts 911 outage caused by firewall software, investigation finds | StateScoop

Published

on

Massachusetts 911 outage caused by firewall software, investigation finds | StateScoop


After an investigation into Tuesday’s 911 outage in Massachusetts, officials found that it was caused by firewall software used by the Massachusetts State 911 Department and its 911 vendor meant to protect the system from cyberattacks.

The outage, which lasted from 1:15 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. local time on Tuesday, according to a statement about the investigation released by the State 911 Department and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security on Wednesday, prevented calls from getting to the 911 dispatch centers. While the preliminary investigation revealed the cause was the firewall, the exact reason the firewall stopped calls from reaching dispatch centers remains under review, according to the announcement.

Once the state’s 911 department became aware of the issue, a statewide emergency alert was issued that told residents to instead call the business line of the public safety agency, according to a screenshot posted by the Associated Press. The 911 department also addressed the technical issue with Comtech, the statement said, and local law enforcement was alerted to the issue through a statewide broadcast network.

While some calls were not able to get through to the dispatch centers, the system allowed the centers to identify the phone number of callers and return those calls, the statement said. Additionally, the department said it has not received any reports of emergencies impacted during the interruption.

Advertisement

“The Massachusetts State 911 Department is deeply committed to providing reliable, state-of-the-art 911 services to all Massachusetts residents and visitors in an emergency. The Department will take all necessary steps to prevent a future occurrence,” Frank Pozniak, executive director of the State 911 Department, said in the statement. “We are grateful to everyone for their patience and cooperation during the outage.”

According to the statement, a full review of the outage will continue and Comtech has advised State 911 that it’s applied a technical solution to ensure similar outages don’t happen again.

Written by Keely Quinlan

Keely Quinlan reports on privacy and digital government for StateScoop. She was an investigative news reporter with Clarksville Now in Tennessee, where she resides, and her coverage included local crimes, courts, public education and public health. Her work has appeared in Teen Vogue, Stereogum and other outlets. She earned her bachelor’s in journalism and master’s in social and cultural analysis from New York University.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending