acf-code-field
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/propertyinsuranc/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Jean Niven<\/a> recently wrote a blog post about insurance coverage cases being won or lost based on expert witnesses<\/a> and the preparation of their reports and testimony.<\/p>\n Mama Jo\u2019s, Inc. d\/b\/a Berries, has now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> to hear an appeal of the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s ruling<\/a>1<\/sup> that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an \u201call risk\u201d commercial insurance policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant.<\/p>\n Mama Jo\u2019s asserts that the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s decision deviates from controlling Florida law on the issue of what constitutes \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d under an all-risk insurance policy. Mama Jo\u2019s argues that determination of whether damage that can be \u201ccleaned\u201d constitutes \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d to property, is a matter of great public importance.<\/p>\n In support of Supreme Court review, Mama Jo\u2019s asserts that the implications of this overly narrow interpretation of coverage have a significant impact on the insurance industry.<\/p>\n While this case pertains to cleaning construction dust and debris as well as actual physical loss to property and business income, the restrictive interpretation of \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d extends to claims involving the cleaning and remediation of water, mold, smoke, soot, and viruses.<\/p>\n The appellate court\u2019s ruling requiring \u201ctangible destruction\u201d of property under all-risk policies nullifies entire areas of coverage that would normally afford coverage for clean-up expenses associated with debris removal from covered property.<\/p>\n Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit rational in requiring permanent damage or dispossession of property and suggesting that dust cannot \u201cdamage\u201d property because the condition is only temporary departs from the current standard. Time element coverages are typically related to business and the loss is measured by a period of time.<\/p>\n Mama Jo\u2019s further argues that certain issues presented overlap with the recent proliferation of COVID-19 insurance cases across the country. At the time the Eleventh Circuit issued the Opinion, this question of law already affected hundreds of thousands of policy holders. Significantly, as of the date of the petition, the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s Opinion has been cited over 50 times in briefs directed towards COVID-19 claims. Insurance carriers are employing the rationale used by the Eleventh Circuit here and other jurisdictions to argue that viral contamination is not a direct physical loss because the virus can be cleaned or disinfected.<\/p>\n Though the case ruling is an unpublished opinion, insurers may continue to ignore basic insurance guidelines, and cite Mama Jo\u2019s as a basis to continue denying coverage. Homeowners, insurers, and industry professionals will closely monitor this case, should the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari<\/em>. Jean Niven recently wrote a blog post about insurance coverage cases being won or lost based on expert witnesses and the preparation of their reports and testimony. Mama Jo\u2019s, Inc. d\/b\/a Berries, has now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s ruling1 that the restaurant is not entitled to …<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":26127,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[300],"tags":[53,127,294],"class_list":["post-28903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-attorneys","tag-business-interruption","tag-commercial-insurance-claims","tag-coronavirus"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n_______________________________________
\n1<\/sup> Mama Jo\u2019s, Inc. v. Sparta Ins. Co.<\/em>, No. 18-12887 (11th Cir. Aug. 18, 2020)<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"