The Michigan Court of Appeals found the insured was not covered for water damage because the commercial space was left vacant. Cherry Hill Recreation Center, Inc. v. Conifer Ins Co., 2026 Mich, App. LEXIS 5099 (Mich Ct. App. June 18, 2026).
Alan Abbas purchased a bowling alley. Due to the onset of the COVID-19
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.
The federal district court in North Carolina dismissed the insured’s complaint for losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic but granted leave to amend the complaint. The Durham Wood Fired Pizza Company LLC, et al. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250083 (M.D. N.C. Dec. 4, 2025).
Plaintiffs were four restaurants who
After the lower court granted summary judgment to Omni Hotels and Resorts’ claim for coverage due to COVID-19 losses, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed, in part, based upon language in some of the insurers’ policies. TRT Holdngs, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7407 (Texas Ct. App. Sept. 18
The Minnesota Court of Appeals found losses from government orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic were covered by an endorsement which also provided for several occurrences suffered by the insured. Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 269 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2025).
Life Time, Inc. operated health
The Colorado Court of Appeal reversed, in part, the trial court's dismissal of the insured's COVID-19 claim. Spectrum Retirement Communities, LLC, et al v. Continental Casualty Company, 2025 Colo. App. LEXIS 876 (Colo. Ct. App. June 18, 2025).
Spectrum owned and operated forty-three senior living and memory care communities in
Faced with a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by several of its insurers, the insured was successful in arguing that the Loss of Attraction endorsement in one insurer's policy allowed the insured to pursue losses suffered by its businesses due to COVID-19. BBX Capital Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., et
Departing from the multitude of decisions that have determined there is no coverage for losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the North Carolina Supreme Court found that various bars and restaurants that were closed during the pandemic under government orders stated a claim for coverage when suing their insurers. North State Deli, LLC,
Portions of a class action filed against United Services Auto Association and three of its subsidiaries for charging excess premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic survived the insurers' motion to dismiss. 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202472 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2024).
Plaintiffs alleged that a decrease in driving and automobile accidents during
The insurers' motion to dismiss a COVID-19 claim was denied based upon an endorsement for business interruption claims. Mandarin Oriental, Inc. v. HDI Global Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169836 (S.D N.Y. Sept. 19, 2024).
Mandarin owned hotels in, among other cities, Miami, New York, Washington, D.C. and Boston.