Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of November 28, 2022
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.28.22
Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
On November 21, 2022, the Supreme Court denied certiorari for Bel Air Auto Auction, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins., Co., where a Maryland auto dealer sought review of the denial of coverage for its COVID-19 business interruption claims.
On November 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a restaurant and entertainment venue operator’s COVID-19 business interruption claim. The court concluded that the insured failed to state a claim under New York, Illinois, or California law because its claims all rested on the premise that its properties suffered direct physical loss or damage and it did not allege such loss under each jurisdiction’s law. Opinion at 5. It found that, under New York law, an insured’s allegations that “its property was unusable for its intended purpose or physically altered by the presence of COVID-19 are insufficient to state a basis for coverage where the insurance policy requires direct physical loss or damage to property,” that the “presence of COVID-19 on an insured’s premises and associated loss of use of the property are likewise insufficient to trigger property insurance coverage under Illinois law,” and that, under California law, “loss of use of property does not constitute ‘direct physical loss of or damage to’ property.” Opinion at 3-4. The case is Tao Group Holdings, LLC v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau.
On October, 11, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a shuttle bus manufacturer’s COVID-19 business interruption claim. The court found that “[i]t is now widely established that temporary loss of use of a property due to pandemic-related closure orders, without more, does not constitute physical loss or damage.” Opinion at 6. The case is Grech Motors, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.
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



