1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of August 15, 2022

Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of August 15, 2022

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.15.22

Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

On August 11, 2022, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a grant of judgment on the pleadings to Illinois Union Insurance Company on a buffet franchise’s COVID-19 business interruption claims. The court applied its decision in Uncork & Create LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 27 F.4th 926 (4th Cir. 2022), which held that losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were not covered absent material destruction or material harm to the insured premises. The case is Golden Corral Corp. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co.

On August 8, 2022, the Superior Court of California granted Factory Mutual Insurance Company’s motion to strike portions of a complaint filed by nineteen National Hockey League clubs for losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and denied its demurrer. Citing United Talent Agency v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 77 Cal. App. 5th 821 (2022), the Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege covered physical loss or damage due to COVID-19, although it allowed the plaintiffs’ claim for communicable disease coverage to survive Factory Mutual’s demurrer. The case is San Jose Sharks LLC, et al. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., et al.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights