COVID-19 enterprise interruption claimants have had few state appellate court docket selections upon which to rely. Louisiana produced one such determination in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 939 (La. App. 4 Cir., June 15, 2022). The insurer prevailed within the trial court docket in a dispute over whether or not coronavirus constituted “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. The insured restaurant appealed. Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court docket. The Court of Appeal’s opinion turned widely-cited by different COVID-19 enterprise interruption claimants. The insurer appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court and Cajun Conti turned a widely-followed dispute. As mentioned under, the Court of Appeal’s evaluation was out of step with the evaluation undertaken by courts throughout the nation.
The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal in Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 2023 La. LEXIS 563 (La. Mar. 17, 2023). The Louisiana Supreme Court has now joined various different states’ excessive courts in holding that COVID-19 didn’t trigger the bodily injury required by the coverage. For instance, Oklahoma’s Supreme Court just lately printed a well-reason opinion beforehand analyzed on this weblog:
The Court of Appeal’s determination was printed on June 15, 2022. The Louisiana Supreme Court had not but spoken concerning COVID-19 enterprise interruption claims. However, by that point, there was already ample case legislation from federal courts on which the Court of Appeals may have relied, or no less than analyzed. See, e.g., Terry Black’s Barbecue, LLC v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 22 F. 4th 450 (fifth Cir. Jan. 5, 2022) (Texas legislation); Aggie Invs., LLC v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2411 (fifth Cir. January 26, 2022) (Texas legislation); Louisiana Bone & Joint Clinic, LLC v. Transp. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8252 (fifth Cir. Mar. 29, 2022) (Louisiana legislation). The Court of Appeals accepted the insured’s arguments that “loss of use” may represent bodily injury. Despite not counting on pandemic-era case legislation from different jurisdictions, the Court of Appeal cited pre-pandemic case legislation from different jurisdictions that held asbestos fibers and odors may trigger bodily injury although they had been invisible. Further, the Court of Appeal held that “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property was ambiguous and obscure.
The Court of Appeal’s opinion was the topic of a dissent by two justices. The dissent performed a plain language evaluation of the operative provision. The dissent additionally relied upon selections by Louisiana federal district courts in COVID-19 enterprise interruption circumstances.
In the Louisiana Supreme Court, the justices weighed testimony from the events’ scientific consultants. The insured restaurant’s skilled had testified, “Nobody wants to touch or be near property that is infectious. So that is damage.” The insurers’ consultants testified that the virus might be eradicated by cleansing, which might allow regular restaurant operations, and didn’t trigger bodily injury to inanimate surfaces. The Supreme Court rejected many arguments that COVID-19 claimants have tried based mostly on the Court of Appeal’s opinion:
We discover the plain, abnormal and customarily prevailing which means of “direct physical loss of or damage to property” requires the insured’s property maintain a bodily, which means tangible or corporeal, loss or injury. The loss or injury should even be direct, not oblique. Applying these meanings to the information and arguments introduced, COVID-19 didn’t trigger direct bodily lack of or injury to [the insured restaurant’s] property.
[The insured’s expert’s] testimony that the virus infects and damages property really conflicts with the very fact [the insured restaurant] cleaned the property with a disinfectant and continued its use. That truth helps [the insurers’] consultants, who opined the virus doesn’t “damage” surfaces and might be cleaned with a disinfectant. While the [insured] restaurant did enhance its cleansing practices in the course of the pandemic, the property remained bodily intact and useful, needing solely to be sanitized.
[The insured restaurant] additionally claims “direct physical loss” is broader than “damage,” and encompasses the shortcoming to make use of coated property. The argument derives from [the insured restaurant’s] incapability to completely use its eating room in the course of the pandemic. However, lack of use alone just isn’t “physical loss.” Otherwise, the modifier “physical” earlier than “loss” can be superfluous. While authorities restrictions on eating capability and public well being steerage concerning social distancing lowered [the insured restaurant’s] in-person eating capability and restricted its use, once more, [the insured restaurant’s] property was not bodily misplaced in any tangible or corporeal sense. Even when in-person eating was prohibited, [the insured restaurant’s] kitchen continued to offer take-out and supply service, and the [insured] restaurant’s bodily construction was neither misplaced nor modified. The appellate court docket erred by specializing in the lack of use somewhat than on whether or not a direct bodily loss occurred. We discover [the insured restaurant] didn’t endure a direct bodily loss.
We additionally discover help for our interpretation within the definition of “period of restoration.” The insured [restaurant] can get better misplaced enterprise revenue throughout a “period of restoration.” That interval begins 72 hours after a “direct physical loss of or damage to property.” The restoration interval ends when the property needs to be “repaired, rebuilt or replaced with reasonable speed and similar quality” or “business is resumed at a new permanent location.”
…
[The insured restaurant] by no means needed to restore, rebuild, or exchange something. Social distancing and elevated cleansing practices had been carried out, however the construction of the property didn’t bodily change.
The Louisiana Supreme Court additionally rejected the Court of Appeal’s discovering concerning ambiguity. The justices centered on the phrase “repair” within the “period of restoration” definition. The justices opined that “repair” refers to one thing tangible that should entail fixing a bodily defect.
The Louisiana Supreme Court then sought to put itself throughout the mainstream of different state supreme courts that rejected “loss of use” arguments and strictly require tangible alteration of property. The justices cited opinions from Ohio, South Carolina, Maryland, Washington, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. They noticed: “In fact, to date no state supreme court that has addressed this issue has finally decided that the presence of COVID-19 constitutes a physical loss of or damage to property.”
Finally, the Louisiana Supreme Court noticed that the absence of a virus exclusion was irrelevant for the reason that insured restaurant didn’t reveal the set off of “direct physical loss of or damage to insured property.” The justices reinstated the trial court docket’s ruling in favor of the insurer.
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion is necessary as a result of it corrects an anomaly that was being cited in help of COVID-19 enterprise interruption claims across the nation. Like the Cherokee Nation determination mentioned above, Cajun Conti is a mainstream determination that needs to be influential on state courts in different circumstances, reminiscent of circumstances pending in Texas, the place the state supreme court docket has not but spoken on COVID-19 enterprise interruption claims.
About The Author