Two federal appeals courts have again ruled that policyholders are not eligible for COVID-19-related business interruption coverage, in lawsuits filed against Cincinnati Insurance Co.
Thursday's ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Rye Ridge Corp. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. is the 2nd ruling through the appeals court on the issue.
The ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Ryan P. Estes., D.M.D., M.S., P.S.C. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. is that circuit's fifth such ruling.
The New York case was filed by delicatessens in Rye Brook, New York, and Stamford, Connecticut. In its brief ruling, a legal court referred to its Dec. 27 ruling in 10012 Holdings, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Co. that said the art gallery plaintiff had not suffered the physical damage necessary for coverage.
“Here, as with 10012 Holdings, the Delis do not allege any physical damage to their insured premises, and the relevant relation to their insurance policy with Cincinnati aren't materially different from those at issue in the 10012 Holdings,” a three-judge panel said, in affirming a lesser court ruling by the U.S. District Court in Ny.
In the 6th Circuit case, that was filed with a dentist who operates two Kentucky dental offices in Florence and Fort Thomas, a three-judge panel also based its opinion on the issue of physical loss.
The “average person wouldn't say that Estes suffered a 'physical loss' of its dental practices when describing the harms that befell it in this case. COVID-19 didn't destroy its dental practices, and also the government shutdown orders didn't dispossess it of these for any day,” a three-judge panel said, citing its earlier ruling in Santo's Italian Café LLC v. Acuity Insurance Co. and affirming a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Covington, Kentucky.
Attorneys in both cases didn't react to requests for comment.
