1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of October 10, 2022

Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of October 10, 2022

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.10.22

Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

On September 29, 2022, the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Zurich American Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss an orthopedic healthcare business’ COVID-19 business interruption claim. The court concluded that the policy’s “direct physical loss or damage” provisions do not cover loss of use, which “is not structural or physical damage.” Order at 7. Accordingly, no coverage was available because the plaintiff “has not alleged physical damage to its properties but only economic loss.” Id. The case is Reconstructive Orthopedic Assocs. II, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

On September 29, 2022, the district court for the Western District of Missouri granted Employers Insurance Company of Wausau’s motion to dismiss a restaurant group’s COVID-19 business interruption complaint. The court found the restaurant did not show a direct physical loss or damage that it suffered to trigger coverage under its policy, including its “[g]eneric allegations that the virus was, or likely to be, on surfaces in a property.” Order at 6. According to the court, the virus and the related government shutdown orders do not on their own cause physical loss or damage. Id. at 7. Even if the virus were to have altered the property, which the complaint did not allege, the policy’s contamination exclusion applies to bar coverage. Id. at 9, 15. The case is One Group Hospitality, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....