• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Contact Us
  • Sponsor An Email
  • Post A Job
  • Merger & Acquisition Services

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts Insurance News & More

You are here: Home / Insurance News | Massachusetts / COVID 19 | Coronavirus in Massachusetts / SJC Hears First COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage Appeal and Insured’s E&O Claim Against Its Agency

SJC Hears First COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage Appeal and Insured’s E&O Claim Against Its Agency

January 18, 2022 by Owen Gallagher


On January 7, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Court became the first state high court to hear a business interruption claim under the standard all-risk commercial property policy involving COVID-19 related losses. The case argued before the Court was Verveine Corp et al., v. Strathmore Insurance Company and Commercial Insurance Agency, Inc. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-13172.

The importance of this case of first impression before the SJC is that its decision could affect the legal validity of federal court decisions already rendered in Massachusetts in favor of insurers.

Federal courts, including the United States District Court in Massachusetts, have ruled in numerous suits seeking to recover under the business interruption coverage for Covid-related claims against insureds. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled more than eighty years ago that federal courts must follow state law in deciding diversity suits between residents of different states. This rule requires a federal court to apply Massachusetts contract law in a coverage suit between a Massachusetts insured and an out-of-state domiciled insurer. Therefore, a ruling by the SJC reversing the coverage decision in favor of Strathmore would not only affect state court COVID-19 coverage suits but would also affect similar decisions in the federal courts finding no coverage.


The Verveine appeal seeks business interruption coverage and E&O damages against its insurance agent

Verveine Corp. operates three restaurants located in Boston and Cambridge that have common owners. Commercial Insurance Agency, Inc. (the “Commercial Agency”) provided Verveine’s three locations individual policies for several years with Strathmore Insurance.

Verveine’s restaurants lost significant income because of the COVID-19 shutdowns and the restaurants’ resulting inability to use their properties as intended without endangering their employees’ and their customers’ health and safety. Strathmore’s policies provided coverage for lost business income caused by a covered loss. When Verveine filed business interruption claims for its COVID-19-based losses, Strathmore denied coverage asserting that Verveine’s claims did not satisfy the policies’ condition precedent of a “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property.

All three Verveine’s restaurants sued Strathmore for breach of contract in the Massachusetts Superior Court. However, one of the restaurants also sued the Commercial Agency for negligence in placing its Strathmore policy with a virus exclusion that the other two Strathmore policies did not include.

After the Superior Court rule ruled in favor of Strathmore and the Commercial Agency, Verveine appealed to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court, without any request, transferred Verveine’s appeal to it for a decision


Eight amici curiae submit or join in “friend of the court” briefs

The Supreme Judicial Court occasionally solicits amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs from parties not directly involved in a case if that case may have importance to more than the particular parties to an appeal.

Based on the financial issues involved in the Verveine appeal for insured businesses and their insurers, the Supreme Judicial Court published, in September 2021, a request for amicus briefs from interested parties.

The Court received friend of the court briefs from the American Property & Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, the Massachusetts Insurance and Reinsurance Bar Association, American Food Systems, Inc., Amphenol Corporation, the Lawrence General Hospital, and United policyholders, a California-based nonprofit focused on policyholder rights.

The Court identified for the amicus briefs three issues that it proposed to address in the Verveine appeal. As stated by the Court, these issues were:

1. Where “all-risk” commercial property insurance policies provide coverage for loss of “business income and extra expense” when there is a “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property, whether the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental closure orders satisfy the requirements for coverage.

2. Where “all-risk” commercial property insurance policies provide coverage when a covered risk causes damage to non-insured property within one mile of insured property, and a “civil authority” acts to “prohibit access” to a geographic area that includes the insured property, whether the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental closure orders satisfy the requirements for coverage.

3. Whether a virus exclusion provision of an “all-risk” commercial property insurance policy excludes coverage for losses


The argument before the Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court

Full bench of he Supreme Judicial Court hearing argument
The seven justices of the Supreme Judicial Court sitting in session at the John Adams Courthouse

During the January 7 argument before the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court, the justices actively questioned the lawyers for Verveine and Strathmore with questions.

Some highlights of the questions to counsel for Verveine, Benjamin Zimmerman of Sugarman and Sugarman, and Stephen Goldman of the firm of Robinson and Cole for Strathmore may have shown some of the issues and concerns the justices.

Forty seconds after Attorney Zimmerman began his argument, Justice David Lowy interjected, stating, “If I could interrupt you for a moment.”

After some preliminary acknowledgment of Verveine’s general statements of legal rules, Judge Lowy continued by identifying multiple court decisions denying Verveine’s coverage position and ended with, “What’s the fundamental flaw on all these other decisions?”

Attorney Zimmerman responded that these decisions did not follow the “tenets of the law of contract construction that have been followed for decades and were supposed to be [followed] in this case. He started to argue that Strathmore had left the terms [direct physical loss of or damage to] undefined “for decades and decades and decades.”

However, Judge Dalila Wendlandt opined, stating, “Counsel, just because something is undefined doesn’t mean you win, or that it is ambiguous. So, can you address that part? How is the forced pivot of your clients towards takeout business? Through the governor’s order, a direct physical loss or damage to property?”

A few moments later, Judge Scott Kafker addressing the question of physical damage or loss, observed that notwithstanding the shutdown, “The property is exactly the same,” and asked, “Is it the problem that people are coming into the property [and] not the property? Particularly for takeout. So, if there’s something wrong with the property, how can they do takeout?”

Judge Kafker also asked counsel for Verveine if “there [was] any appellate courts that have taken your position on the meaning of “physical”? When Attorney Zimmerman answered, “No,” Judge Kafker asked, “Isn’t that troublesome when you don’t have a single appellate court in the country adopting this view?”

After Attorney Zimmerman finished his allotted fifteen minutes of argument, Strathmore’s lawyer, Stephen Goldman, only got twenty-six seconds into his argument in opposition to Verveine’s appeal when Judge Lowy interrupted. He asked, “They buy this all-risk insurance, and now they have to sit around and wait until there’s COVID in the building and people have gotten sick when you’ve purchased all-risk property insurance?

Judge Kafker followed up with a statement, “I’m just worried Mr. Goldman that, you know, we need to be realistic and practical. These restaurants are open…we have people circulating with the virus in them…. I mean, do you win if there are droplets in one of these restaurants if they’re open? Or do you lose, because…if those restaurants are open, they are going to be droplets.”

Justice Lowy also focused on Verviene’s first argument in a colloquy with Attorney Goldman, beginning, “But I’m saying that we’re jumping over [Verveine’s] first argument. That argument is, if you want me to say it again, that something that has to happen to the property that’s ultimately a material change, that something about the integrity of the property that gets infused into these [other] decisions, they [Verveine] say, that’s not required. Just look at the definition.” [“direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property].

Judge Kafker also raised the issue of the legal effect of the virus exclusion added to one of the three Verveine policies, stating, “…if it’s so obvious that viruses are not covered? Why do you need an exclusion for viruses?”

Attorney Andrew Ferguson, representing the Commercial Agency, made a short final argument that any negligence claim by Verveine against their insurance agency failed because Strathmore had denied coverage to the restaurant whose policy had a virus exclusion for lack of any direct physical damage or loss to insured property. Since Strathmore did not deny any coverage based on the virus exclusion, unless the SJC reversed the Superior Court decision in favor of Strathmore, Verveine’s E&O claim was moot


Agency Checklists’ takeaways from the argument

While lower federal courts and state courts have found against coverage, Agency Checklists opined early in the pandemic that the words “direct physical loss or damage” to property in the standard commercial property policy barred coverage (See Agency Checklists’ article of March 17, 2020, “Business Interruption Coverage & The Coronavirus Pandemic,”).

The lower courts in Massachusetts, both federal and state, have had no doubts about the objective meaning of the terminology, “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. There seems little reason for the Supreme Judicial Court to deviate from these courts’ legal analysis.

The only possible joker is that, as Verveine argued, insurers have studiously avoided defining the operative terminology “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. Conceivably, the Court could apply the reasonable expectations doctrine and “consider what an objectively reasonable insured, reading the relevant policy language, would expect to be covered.”

If the Court decided to weigh its decision toward an insured’s “reasonable expectations, it might find the property policy’s label, “all-risk,” important.

As Justice Lowy implied in questioning Strathmore’s counsel, an insured buying a policy that provides “all-risk” coverage for “business interruption” could reasonably assume that any externally caused business interruptions had coverage.

Whether, in this case, the Supreme Judicial Court would find the labeling of the policy as “all-risk” superseding the requirement of “direct physical loss,” seems, to Agency Checklists, doubtful.


Agency Checklists will report to its readers once the Court issues its opinion

Best insurance lawyers Massachusetts

Owen Gallagher

Insurance Coverage Legal Expert/Co-Founder & Publisher of Agency Checklists

Over the course of my legal career, I have argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as well as helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.

To get in touch with me, schedule a call via the link below:

  • Website
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: COVID 19 | Coronavirus in Massachusetts, Latest News, MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases Tagged With: Agency Checklists, Business interruption lawsuits, Covid-19 insurance issues Massachusetts, COVID-19 lawsuits Massachusetts, Mass. Insurance News, massachusetts insurance news, New England Insurance News

About Owen Gallagher

Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

Primary Sidebar

Sponsored

Sponsored

Latest Agency Sales

Patriot Growth Adds Two Employee Benefit Agencies in Massachusetts

Cross Insurance Acquires Two More Massachusetts Insurance Agencies & Opens A New Office in Newburyport

Q1-2022 Sees A Decline in U.S. Mergers & Acquisitions Activity

Insurance Agency Mergers & Acquisitions in Mass. | Q1-2022

Insurance Agency Mergers & Acquisitions in Mass. | Q1-2022

More Agency Sales

Career News

Two New Appointments At Preferred Mutual

Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News, MA Life Insurance Companies, Boston Mutual

Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company Appoints David Martin as Vice President and Chief Information Officer

Satellite Agency Network

SAN Group Announces Recipients of 2022 SAN Awards

Alera Group Expands Northeast Regional Leadership Team

A.I.M. Mutual Elects Daniel A. Landers President & Chief Executive Officer

A.I.M. Mutual Elects Daniel A. Landers President & Chief Executive Officer

In Memoriam

In Memoriam: Daniel Rizzo, 1937-2022

In Memoriam: Bruce MacDonald 1935-2022

In Memoriam: Bruce MacDonald 1935-2022

In Memoriam: William "Bill" Carter, Jr. 1932-2022

In Memoriam: William “Bill” Carter, Jr. 1932-2022

CAR News

17 Bullet Points on The New Insurance Labor Rate Report

2nd Look 2022: The Massachusetts Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace

2nd Look 2022: The Commercial Auto Insurance Marketplace in Massachusetts

1st Look 2022: The Commercial Auto Insurance Marketplace in Massachusetts

View More CAR News

Massachusetts Law Updates

Front view of the Quincy Mass. Masonic Temple with Roman Columns

Confused Voicemail Leads to E&O and Coverage Suits

SJC Construed For 1st Time Meaning of “Doing Business As” In Relation to CGL Coverage.

5 Points On New Ruling: Unreasonable Storage Reduces ACV Payment

A short opinion with a disproportionate impact on first-party property damage total loss claims.

Agency Checklist article on COVID-19 Closings in Massachusetts

First State High-Court COVID-19 Decision On Business Interruption Claims

Dismissed by Superior Court, the restaurants took their appeal directly to the SJC.

Vermont Mutual Asks High Court to Reverse Decision $215,000 Attorney Fee Award Payable As Damages under Bodily Injury Coverage

An unusual case involving a breach of warranty claim under Chapter 93A and whether mandatory attorney fee awards apply.

More Mass. Law Updates

DOI News

The 2022 MA Home Insurance Report Part II | MA FAIR Plan Review

The 2022 MA Home Insurance Report | Part I

Mass. Business Entity License Renewals on Hold

DOI Fines Producer $1,250 For Prior Failures To Report After License Lapses

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Quinn Group Ins. Owner’s Trial to Begin on Federal Benefit and Social Security Fraud Today

First Guilty Plea in No-Fault PIP Auto Insurance Fraud Scheme

GM Financial Will Pay Over $1.8 Million For GAP Coverage Refunds and Loan Violations

Insurance Agency To Pay $100,000 Fine And $515,000 In Restitution Under Consent Decree

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.

 

Loading Comments...