New Jersey Supreme Court to rule on pandemic-related insurance exclusions
The state's high court is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday in a case brought by the owners of the
Three insurers —
The casino sued and defeated an attempt by the insurers to dismiss the case. But that decision was reversed by an appellate court.
The issue has arisen in state and federal courts around the country, including cases where payouts were denied involving a chain of
“This case presents a generational legal dispute that this court should resolve in order to provide needed clarity to hundreds of thousands of affected
Last year, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve some questions regarding the case.
They include whether a claim that the coronavirus physically damaged insured property is enough to allege “direct physical loss of or damage to” it, and whether insurers can legally restrict coverage for pandemic-related losses by mentioning viruses in general pollution or “contamination” exclusions.
The casino sought payouts for losses incurred during that time under policies from the three insurers.
“The actual and/or threatened presence of coronavirus particles at the
United Policyholders, an advocacy group for insurance customers, urges the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief to rule in favor of the casino.
“The ruling sought by the (insurers) here would curtail coverage for millions of
___
Follow
California man sentenced in drug trafficking scheme that used phony court documents, fake IDs [The Sacramento Bee]
SCOR appoints Claudia Dill and Redmond Murphy to the Executive Committee
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News