Insurers’ COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now - Week of July 25, 2022
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.25.22
Court Dismisses COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
On July 19, 2022, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the dismissal of a property owner’s COVID-19 business interruption claim. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for “direct physical loss” to its dwelling because it failed to allege any lost income due to damage or destruction of the property when it alleged only that roads accessing the property were closed due to the prohibition on entry into the county by non-resident visitors related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Opinion at 8-9. The court also found that there was no coverage for loss of use where there was no allegation that the county prohibited the plaintiff from using its property. Id. at 10-11. The case is Four Roses, LLC v. First Protective Ins. Co.
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
