Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of September 26, 2022
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.26.22
Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
On September 20, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a jeweler’s COVID-19 business interruption lawsuit. The court held that income lost while being closed due to pandemic-related orders was not the result of “direct physical loss.” Order at 4. The court relied on its earlier decision in Q Clothier New Orleans LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 29 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2022) and said loss of use from the shutdown orders did not tangibly alter the property. Id. at 4, 6. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the negligent procurement claims against the jeweler’s insurance brokers, finding that they did not have an affirmative duty to advise the company about the availability of pandemic-related insurance coverage. Id. at 8. Instead, the court said, an agent’s duty ends once the insured receives the insurance it requested; it is the policyholder’s responsibility to request the type of insurance it wants. Id. at 11-12. The case is Coleman E. Adler & Sons, L.L.C. v Axis Surplus Insurance Co.
On September 19, 2022, the district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Continental Casualty Company’s motion to dismiss a hospital and healthcare facility operator’s COVID-19 business interruption claim. The court found that “the weight of jurisprudence and the law of the circuit” required it “to interpret ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property’ to cover only ‘tangible alterations of, injuries to, and deprivations of property.’” Order at 9. The case is Fairway Medical Ctr., LLC v. Continental Cas. Co.
New Business Interruption Suits Against Insurers:
A residential real estate company sued Amguard Insurance Company in California state court (Contra Costa County) for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The policy allegedly provides business interruption and civil authority coverage. Complaint at ¶¶ 112-17. The Complaint alleges that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 within the plaintiff’s properties “caused direct physical loss of or damage to properties (or both) by transforming the property from usable and safe into property that is unsatisfactory and prohibited for use, uninhabitable, unfit for their intended function, and extremely dangerous and potentially deadly for humans.” Id. at ¶ 5. The case is Happy Valley Road LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
