the Billy Goat Tavern
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:53 pm
Insurance companies say "cheezburget, cheezburger, cheezburger, no pepsi - coke!"
The tavern and millions of other shuttered businesses nationwide have turned to their insurers to help recoup their losses following state-mandate closures, which combined may exceed $300 billion a month. But insurers have widely rejected the claims, so the Billy Goat joined a growing line of businesses, including barbershops and casinos, suing insurers to force them to pay.
...
President Donald Trump recently expressed sympathy for businesses asking insurers to pay up for business interruption coverage.
“When they finally need it, the insurance company says, ‘We’re not going to give it,’” he said at a coronavirus task force news conference. “We can’t let that happen.”
Similar conflicts are playing out in Europe and Asia, though they aren’t likely to see the torrent of lawsuits sure to come in the litigious United States.
The question on which many cases will hinge is whether the presence of the virus in or near a business can be categorized as direct physical damage, something that would otherwise be clearly covered.
So, this clearly has a deep impact on Insurance companies since their argument is that paying out for something that didn't collect a premium will prevent payment for something that did collect a premium - essentially a political challenge to the most basic economic model of insurance.
But I am undecided on how this should play out, in a broad sense I side with policy holders, but the principle in question seems to require some detailing.
How should this circumstance resolve?
The tavern and millions of other shuttered businesses nationwide have turned to their insurers to help recoup their losses following state-mandate closures, which combined may exceed $300 billion a month. But insurers have widely rejected the claims, so the Billy Goat joined a growing line of businesses, including barbershops and casinos, suing insurers to force them to pay.
...
President Donald Trump recently expressed sympathy for businesses asking insurers to pay up for business interruption coverage.
“When they finally need it, the insurance company says, ‘We’re not going to give it,’” he said at a coronavirus task force news conference. “We can’t let that happen.”
Similar conflicts are playing out in Europe and Asia, though they aren’t likely to see the torrent of lawsuits sure to come in the litigious United States.
The question on which many cases will hinge is whether the presence of the virus in or near a business can be categorized as direct physical damage, something that would otherwise be clearly covered.
So, this clearly has a deep impact on Insurance companies since their argument is that paying out for something that didn't collect a premium will prevent payment for something that did collect a premium - essentially a political challenge to the most basic economic model of insurance.
But I am undecided on how this should play out, in a broad sense I side with policy holders, but the principle in question seems to require some detailing.
How should this circumstance resolve?