In the context of the numerous lawsuits have recently filed by policyholders seeking compensation for lost business income occasioned by the pending pandemic, a key issue will be whether those policyholders have suffered “direct physical loss or damage” to their businesses. A case decided earlier this year (albeit in a different factual context) sheds some light on whether this requirement can be satisfied in the present circumstances.
In Nat’l Ink & Stitch, LLC vs. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 374460 (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2020), plaintiff policyholder was the victim of a ransomware attack on her business’ computer server and networked computers. Following the attack, plaintiff employed a security company to replace and reinstall its software, and to install protective software on its computer system.
Although plaintiff’s computers still functioned after these remedial measures, the installation of the new protective software slowed the system and resulted in a loss of efficiency. In addition, computer experts retained by plaintiff testified that “there are likely dormant remnants of the ransomware virus in the system, that could ‘re-infect the entire system.’”
Presumably based on the possibility that plaintiff’s system could be re-infected at a later date, the plaintiff evidently purchased an entirely new server and components and sought reimbursement from her property insurer for this loss. The insurer denied the claim.
Like many business interruption policies, the policy at issue obligated the insurer to pay for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property.” The key issue in the case was whether plaintiff experienced “direct physical loss of or damage to” its computer system, to justify reimbursement of the replacement cost for the entire system under the policy.
The insurer in Nat’l Ink argued that because plaintiff’s computer system was not fully incapacitated, there could be no recovery for the replacement cost of the entire system. In rejecting this argument, the court emphasized the independent significance of the word “damage” in the phrase “direct physical loss or damage to.” Because “direct physical loss” and “damage” are in the disjunctive, “the plain language of the Policy … protects against not only ‘physical loss’ but also ‘damage’ to the media and the data.”
In emphasizing this language, the court held that plaintiff had demonstrated damage to the computer system itself, despite its residual ability to function:
“In the instant case, State Auto seems to equate ‘physical loss or damage’ to Plaintiff’s computer system to require an utter inability to function. The Policy language, and the relevant case law, impose no such prerequisite. The more persuasive cases are those suggesting that loss of use, loss of reliability or impaired functionality demonstrate the required to a computer system, consistent with the “physical loss or damage to” language in the Policy (emphasis added). Indeed, in many instances a computer will suffer ‘damage’ without becoming completely inoperable.”
See also Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2013 WL 440516 at *1 (E.D. Ky. Aug.14, 2013) (threat to computer system’s future reliability caused temporary failure of hospital’s air conditioning system deemed to satisfy policy’s requirement of “direct physical loss or damage” to insured property).
These cases may be relevant to the pending business interruption litigation because they suggest that even minimal or temporary “damage”, or even the threat of future “damage”, might be enough to meet the “direct physical loss or damage” requirement in many of these policies. Thus, in Ashland Hosp. Corp. the court found that the “damage” requirement in the policy could be satisfied even if such damage occurs “on a microscopic level”, which in that case arose “through a process called ‘ionic migration’, in which ‘lubricants are thinned or … move around because they’re more fluid [as a result of heat exposure].’” This conclusion is consistent with numerous cases holding that “direct physical loss” may exist in the absence of structural damage to the insured property. See, e.g., Sentinel vs. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 563 N.W.2d 296 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (although asbestos contamination, through release of asbestos fibers, does not result in tangible injury to the physical structure of a building, a building’s function may be seriously impaired or destroyed and the property rendered useless by the presence of contaminants).
These cases suggest that in the context of the current pandemic a viral outbreak which renders property useless or impairs its functioning may satisfy the “physical loss or damage” requirement in business interruption policies. In this regard, the decision in Nat’l Stitch is particularly noteworthy because of its suggestion that “loss of use” of the insured property may be sufficient to trigger coverage. Just as “a computer will suffer ‘damage’ without becoming completely inoperable”, so too business premises may sustain sufficient “damage” as a result of the current pandemic to trigger an effective loss of use. This notion is in accord with language in Hughes vs. Potomac Ins. Co., 199 Cal. App. 2d 239 (1962) suggesting that the “direct physical loss or damage” requirement would be satisfied where a dwelling had become uninhabitable even though no tangible injury had been done to the building’s structure.
Finally, Nat’l Stitch is also noteworthy it sanctioned a recovery for the complete replacement of the plaintiff’s computer system based on the possibility of the threat of future harm — i.e., the remains of the ransomware virus could potentially re-infect the system. In the context of the current pandemic, the actions taken by business owners to close their businesses similarly arise in the context of avoiding the spread of the pandemic to their employees and customers. Thus even in the absence of evidence of actual infection, the threat of future harm should be sufficient to trigger coverage. See, e.g., Murray vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 203 W. Va. 477 (W. Va. 1998) (although plaintiff policyholders’ house was not actually damaged by rockfalls, they were compelled to leave their house because of the possibility that additional rocks could fall. As such, and because the homes had therefore become unsafe for habitation, coverage was triggered).
This article was originally published in the Daily Journal. View the original post here.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014