No Physical Damage No Coverage
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6925421498660790273?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A6925421498660790273%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
Posted on April 28, 2022 by Barry Zalma
EVEN THE NINTH CIRCUIT AGREES
In Rialto Pockets, Inc.; Brookhurst Venture, LLC; City Of Industry Hospitality Venture, Inc.; and 22 more plaintiffs, et al. v. Beazley Underwriting Limited, and Certain Underwriters At Lloyds London, Including Beazley Furlonge Ltd, No. 21-55196, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (April 20, 2022) the 24 Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their operative complaint in an insurance coverage dispute.
Plaintiffs are 24 affiliated companies who operate 23 so-called “gentlemen’s” clubs and a retail store, and they claim coverage under a single policy issued by Defendant Beazley Underwriting Ltd. (“Beazley”) to non-party affiliate The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiffs alleged that all 24 businesses were closed as a result of the Covid-19 Governmental Orders, including stay-at-home orders issued by the State of California and relevant local governments. After Beazley denied coverage for economic losses resulting from the closures, Plaintiffs sued asserting a single claim for breach of the insurance policy. The district court granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ operative amended complaint.
FACTS ALLEGED
The “relevant coverage provision” is referred to as the “Time Element” provision, which addresses certain economic losses resulting from physical damage or loss to insured property. Specifically, that provision states that:
“[t]his Policy insures Time Element loss, as set forth in the Time Element Coverages, directly resulting from direct physical loss or physical damage insured by this Policy occurring during the Period of Insurance to Property Insured by this Policy” (emphasis added by the court).
According to the complaint, Beazley breached this coverage obligation by failing to pay Plaintiffs for the Time Element losses that directly resulted from the Covid-19 Governmental Orders or were caused by the Covid-19 Governmental Orders.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ claim of coverage is foreclosed by the California Court of Appeal’s decision, Inns by the Sea v. California Mut. Ins. Co., 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 (Ct. App. 2021) and the Ninth Circuit’s decision Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 505 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2007).
The decision in the Inns by the Sea case addressed the interpretation of analogous policy language providing coverage for a suspension of operations “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at [the insured’s] premises,” and it did so in the context of comparable alleged losses based “on the situation created by the [Covid-19 Governmental] Orders.” 286 Cal.Rptr.3d at 582, 590 (second emphasis added). The court rejected such coverage as a matter of law.
Inns by the Sea held that, under well-settled California insurance law, the “mere loss of use of physical property to generate business income, without any other physical impact on the property, does not give rise to coverage for direct physical loss.” (emphasis added).
Even assuming that the alleged physical presence of the virus on the insured’s premises might be thought to give rise to a physical impact or to direct physical damage, there still was no coverage.
The relevant coverage language required that the alleged loss be “caused by” the claimed direct physical damage, but the insured’s own allegations confirmed “the lack of causal connection between the alleged physical presence of the virus on [the insured’s] premises and the suspension of [its] operations.” Even if the insured “had thoroughly sterilized its premises to remove any trace of the virus,” the insured “would still have continued to incur a suspension of operations because the Orders would still have been in effect and the normal functioning of society still would have been curtailed.”
The complaint expressly alleges that the losses “directly result[ed] from the Covid-19 Governmental Orders” or were “caused by the Covid-19 Governmental Orders.” The plaintiffs, because there was no way they could, did not allege direct physical damage to their property. Consequently, under Inns by the Sea, the claimed losses did not “directly result[] from direct . . . physical damage . . . to Property,” as required by the relevant policy language.
Because Plaintiffs’ asserted losses do not fall within the scope of the insurance policy, the district court correctly granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
ZALMA OPINION
When even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit refuses to ignore the clear and unambiguous language of a policy of insurance that requires there be direct physical damage to property to recover under a time element coverage (business interruption) cover because of orders of the state shutting the business, it is time for lawyers and litigants to stop trying. They might want to consider that their losses are due to a taking of their property by the state in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
