Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of October 3, 2022
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.03.22
Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
On September 19, 2022, the district court for the Central District of California granted Berkley Regional Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss two jewelers’ COVID-19 business interruption claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege any direct physical loss of or damage to property because a “temporary loss of intended use of property caused by government orders in response to COVID-19 does not constitute physical loss of or damage to the property.” Order at 7. The court further found that, even if coverage was otherwise available, “the Virus Exclusion, the Ordinance or Law Exclusion, and the Policies’ Acts or Decisions Exclusion would bar that coverage.” Id. at 10. The case is Jack Sarkissian, et al. v. Berkley Regional Ins. Co.
New Business Interruption Suits Against Insurers:
A university sued Employers Insurance Company of Wausau in Washington state court (King County) for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and alleged violations of Washington’s consumer protection act. Plaintiff’s five all-risk policies allegedly provide varying combinations of property, time element, extra expense, civil authority, ingress/egress, research and development, attraction, and communicable disease coverage. Complaint at ¶¶ 14-36. The complaint alleges that COVID-19 causes direct physical damage because it “physically transforms the content of the air in any location where it is present” and by “transforming physical objects, materials, or surfaces into ‘fomites.’” Id. at ¶¶ 58, 65. The complaint also alleges Employers Insurance Company “conducted a bad faith paper investigation” of plaintiff’s claim and “never acknowledged that any portion of the Claims are covered.” Id. at ¶ 215. The case is Bd. Of Regents of the Univ. of Wash. V. Emps. Ins. Co. of Wasau.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
