The court granted in part, denied in part, the insurer's motion to dismiss after examining portions of the policy's virus exclusion. Barbershop v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211152 (W.D. Texas, Nov. 4, 2020).

    The insured was a barbershop and grooming supply retailer. On March 31, 2020, government orders temporarily closed the insured's business until May 5, 2020, due to COVID-19. The insured submitted a claim for business interruption to its carrier, Twin City. The claim was denied because the coronavirus did not cause property damage at the insured's place of business. Further, the policy had a virus exclusion which provided limited coverage not available under the facts here. 

    The insured argued that Twin City could have easily expressly excluded pandemics from coverage, but it did not do so. Instead, the term "virus" was grouped with things that are not disease-causing agents, such as "wet rot" and "dry rot." Therefore, the exclusion could be understood to exclude the presence of virus that was "akin to rot," whlch would not include a global pandemic.

    The insured further argued that the Virus Endorsement included coverage for viruses. Up to 30 days of coverage for business interruption was permitted if "losses or damage to property caused by . ..virus caused a suspension of operations." The court held that the insured pled a plausible claim for relief pertaining to coverage under this provision in the Virus Endorsement. The motion to dismiss was denied as it related to this provision.