"This opinion highlights the insurance industry’s greatest weakness in attempting to apply “virus” exclusions: the overwhelming majority of exclusions cited by carriers to avoid coverage for COVID-19 losses have nothing to do with a pandemic. Rather, they were demonstrably drafted years ago to address risks entirely unrelated to the transmission of a virus. Sentinel exemplifies insurers’ broader misguided efforts to equate COVID-19 to a fungus or rot caused by the elements over time. Attempts to apply “fungus” exclusions and other imprecise language quickly lose all credibility when analyzed under the law governing exclusions."
By Walter J. Andrews and Cary D. Steklof
| November 16, 2020 in NU Property Casualty 360
Should read the full article and keep an eye on the Business Interruption Test Case Appeal in UK Supreme Court this week
Insurers worried about managing BI claims can find a customised no code solution here which has already been deployed by two global insurers.
The law in many jurisdictions, including Florida, provides that an exclusion only applies when it is clearly and unambiguously intended to bar coverage for the risk in question. But if this is true, is it appropriate for carriers to avoid coverage by citing exclusions drafted decades ago to address things like industrial pollution and fungus? One Florida court has now answered this question in favor of policyholders.
unknownx500
