Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025).

A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire.

Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income.

Maxus discovered visible soot stains throughout Phases 1-5 that seemed to indicate smoke had entered the HVAC system during the fire. Maxus hired Forensic Building Science (FBS) to inspect Phases 1-5. FBS issued a report finding that carcinogenic soot was present throughout Phases 1-5 and that extensive remediation was required. This would require the evacuation of all residents and employees. Maxus informed Travelers, but Travelers refused to take a position on whether an evacuation was needed and refused to accept the findings of FBS.

Tenants evacuated the Metropolitan. Travelers hired a hygienist who disputed FBS’s findings and deemed ongoing remediation unnecessary.

Maxus sued Travelers. At Trial, Travelers argued that the soot from the Phase 6 fire did not reach the other buildings. Rather, it claimed any soot present in Phases 1-4 was the normal result of background contamination from the neighborhood and not from the fire. Further, microscopic soot did not constitute “physical loss or damage” as required under the policy.

The jury sided with Maxus and awared $27,330,263.13 in damages. Travelers appealed on various issues, including whether the presence of microscopic soot constituted “direct physical loss or damage.”

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that under MIssouri law, COVID-19 contamination was not covered damage because it did not cause a “physical alteration or tangible impact to” the insured property. But Missouri also distinguished the COVID-19 virus from asbestos, which would be covered under the policy because released asbestos fibers were a form of contamination that was permanent absent some intervention.

At trial, Maxus presented ample evidence regarding the presence of soot throughout Phases 1-4, as well as regarding the extensive remediation procedures that were required to remove the soot. Travelers did not dispute that soot was present, but argued that the presence of microscopic soot was not “physical ” damage unless the soot was visible or affected the object’s structural integrity. But under Missouri law, soot damage – like asbestos damage and unlike a virus- was both directly material, perceptible, or tangible and permanent absent some intervention.

Therefore, sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict.