Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenth Circuit: Government COVID Closure Orders Do Not Trigger Coverage for Loss of Business Income
In Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., — F.4th –, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37802 (Dec. 21, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit joined other circuits in holding that government closure orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic do not trigger insurance coverage for loss of business income. The court reasoned that the temporary inability to use property caused by COVID shutdown orders doesn't involve a covered physical loss of property, and in any event, the policy's virus exclusion applied.
The Closure Order and the Insurance Policy
In March 2020, Oklahoma's Governor issued an executive order requiring businesses that were not considered part of the "critical infrastructure sector" to close to the public on March 25, 2020, due to the COVID-19 emergency. Id. at *2. Local closure orders followed. Id. In response, Goodwill halted its operations and suffered resulting losses. Id.
Philadelphia Indemnity insured Goodwill under a commercial lines policy. Goodwill's losses potentially implicated two policy provisions: the "Business Income" and "Period of Restoration" clauses. Under the Business Income clause, Philadelphia Indemnity agreed to "pay for the actual loss of Business Income [Goodwill] sustain[s] due to the necessary 'suspension' of [Goodwill's] 'operations' during the 'period of restoration.'" Id. at *3. A '"suspension'" "'must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at [the covered] premises.'" Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.