The plain meaning of this language indicates an agreement between the parties that the contract for insurance cover any business interruption caused by loss by any peril not excluded. A “loss” is not predicated on physical damage but is one category of recovery along with damage and destruction as indicated by the use of the alternative coordinating conjunction “or.” Flooding due to Hurricane Floyd is exactly the type of peril this business interruption loss was drafted to insure against.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Reliance was aware of the location of the Fountain facility and was aware that the facility had a limited access. The court can only conclude that the parties intended that the policy would provide coverage not only when the property itself was inaccessible, but also when the only route to the Facility caused the property to be inaccessible. The court’s conclusion that no physical loss is required to trigger business interruption coverage is further bolstered by the parties’ inclusion of the following provision:<\/p>\n

5. Interruption by Civil or Military Authority: This policy is extended to cover the loss sustained during the period of time when, as a direct result of a peril not excluded, access to real or personal property is prohibited by order of civil or military authority.<\/p>\n

This provision immediately precedes the loss of ingress\/egress provision. Neither provision requires physical loss, but merely covers loss sustained due to lack of access to the property.<\/strong><\/em> Therefore, the court finds that no requirement for physical loss to the property is required under the contract of insurance in order to trigger business interruption coverage under the ingress\/egress clause.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The court also found the insured’s efforts to pick up its employees and drive them to work were extraordinary (since they were driving large trucks over heavily flooded and closed roads), and the provision provides coverage when there is no reasonable access to the property. Interestingly, the court found the period of restoration for which loss of ingress\/egress may be claimed is the length of time to restore the business to the condition that would have existed had no loss of ingress\/egress occurred.<\/p>\n

Many businesses lost income because their customers, employees, distributors and drivers could not reasonably access the property after Hurricane Sandy. Therefore, if a policy contains an Ingress\/Egress provision, a measure of recovery for business income losses may be owed to the insured, and payment should not be denied only because the insured property sustained damages from excluded cause of loss.<\/p>\n

Businesses that have been denied payment for business income losses caused by Hurricane Sandy should review their policies and consult with coverage attorneys to determine if their claims have been wrongfully denied.<\/p>\n