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.

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.

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.”

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