Search Site

NJ and NY Courts side with insurance companies over hotels concerning certain COVID-related claims

As the COVID-19 pandemic forced shutdowns across the world, the hospitality business was amongst the hardest hit industries in terms of economic loss. In response, some hotels have filed insurance claims under their property and business income insurance in hopes of recuperating some of these losses. Courts are now tasked with evaluating the unprecedented issue of whether the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are covered under the language of certain insurance policies. A New Jersey court recently dismissed claims brought by various hotel owners under numerous different insurance policies.

On October 5, 2021, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss in favor of multiple insurance companies dismissing plaintiff hotels’ claims for loss due to the COVID-19 shutdowns. The plaintiff hotels claimed “direct physical loss and damage,” loss of use, and a loss of ingress/egress. The Court opined that none of these claims provided coverage. The “direct physical loss and damage” provision did not apply ultimately because the COVID-19 virus did not cause any physical damage to the structure. The Court also found that the language of the relevant insurance policy did not provide coverage for “loss of use.” Finally, the Court decided that the loss of ingress/egress provision did not apply because the government shutdowns were not an adequate showing of impairment of the ingress/egress to the plaintiffs’ businesses.

The Court did leave some hope for the hotel claimants. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs made claims under a “contagious disease” provision in one of their policies. The plaintiffs had not yet made this claim prior to presenting it in court. Therefore, the Court stated that the contagious disease claim should be dismissed without prejudice because the insurance company had not yet had the ability to evaluate and make a coverage determination on this claim. The Court noted that this coverage determination cannot be made based on the general shutdowns and emergency orders widely applicable to the State or country as a whole, but rather that each claim must be evaluated on an individual basis considering the specific circumstances relevant to each business and location.

You can read the Court’s full opinion here.

Our Attorneys

In The Media

  • On the Run: Runner/lawyer DeBord out to protect the environment she loves

    Bucks County Herald, January 4, 2024

    When Brittany DeBord runs along the Delaware River canal towpath or on the trails of Tyler State Park, she doesn’t just appreciate the natural beauty of the...

    Read More
  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form