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 | 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
