Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, 3 May 2022, No. ‎21-1695‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
No. ‎21-1695‎
Decision date
3 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Property
Further areas addressed
Freedom to conduct a business
Vulnerability groups
Children
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.casetext.com

Case analisys

General Summary

Plaintiffs, childcare centers in Illinois and Michigan, sued their ‎insurer after it denied claims related to business disruptions caused ‎by the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court granted the insurer's ‎motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint did not plausibly ‎allege "direct physical loss of or damage to" property or any other ‎facts falling within the scope of the insurance policies' coverage. The ‎district court concluded that the Centers had not plausibly alleged ‎that COVID-19 caused physical loss of or damage to their property-‎or to nearby property- or that government shutdown orders were due ‎to a COVID-19 outbreak on their premises. The court also ‎determined that the Sue ‎ and Labor section imposed duties on the ‎Centers but did not itself provide any coverage. Plaintiffs ‎appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's ‎dismissal was consistent with the Court’s recent decisions in COVID-‎‎19-related insurance cases-and, therefore, reaffirmed the decision, ‎rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claims.‎

Facts of the case

Plaintiffs prepared young children for kindergarten, focusing on their ‎academic, social, and emotional needs. The Centers operated ‎successfully until the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March ‎‎20, 2020, "to slow and stop the spread of COVID-19," the Governor ‎of Illinois ordered all persons living in the state to stay at home ‎except to perform specified "essential activities" and ordered "non-‎essential" businesses to cease all but minimum basic operations. ‎Childcare providers were permitted to continue operating only if they ‎received an emergency license to care for the children of workers ‎deemed essential. A few days later, the Governor of Michigan issued ‎a similar order to "suppress the spread of COVID-19." Subject to ‎certain mitigating measures, childcare providers could remain open ‎solely for the purpose of serving the children of "critical ‎infrastructure" workers.‎

Both States would eventually lift these restrictions by June 2020. ‎While they were in place, however, the Centers suspended ‎operations. Upon reopening, the Centers operated at reduced ‎capacities. As a result, they lost substantial income and incurred ‎additional expenses. The Centers filed claims under their all-risk ‎commercial property insurance policies. Their insurer denied the ‎claims. So, the Centers brought this action. They alleged that the ‎Defendant breached its contracts with them and sought a declaratory ‎judgment to that effect, on behalf of themselves and a similar class of ‎insureds.‎

Type of measure challenged
Private company measure
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of collective redress measures such as damages or restitutions and annulment of the administrative decision.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Private individual
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court has analyzed the arguments of the Plaintiffs and the ‎Defendants and has reasoned that:‎ ‎

  1. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state a ‎claim to relief that is plausible on its face. ‎
  2. Plaintiffs contended that the undefined policy requirement of ‎‎"direct physical loss" appearing in these provisions were ‎broad enough to describe the circumstances alleged in their ‎complaint-where the COVID-19 virus was present in the air ‎and had attached to the surfaces of property, rendering their ‎premises dangerous and unusable, thereby constituting a ‎physical loss. The Court has reasoned that with respect to ‎Illinois law that the phrase "direct physical loss" in a ‎commercial property insurance policy "requires a physical ‎alteration to property"-that is, some "alteration in appearance, ‎shape, color or other material dimension." ‎
  3. The Centers have reasoned that the policies acknowledge that ‎a communicable disease can cause direct physical loss of or ‎damage to covered property. The Centers' contention that the ‎meaning of "physical loss" can be discerned from their ‎policies' structure was raised for the first time in their opening ‎brief in this Court. Neither their brief in opposition to the ‎motion to dismiss nor any other submission to the district ‎court had mentioned it. The Court has reasoned that the ‎argument is therefore forfeited.‎
  4. Plaintiffs have also claimed coverage under the Civil ‎Authority section. The Court has argued that this provision is ‎only triggered when access to the Centers' premises is ‎prohibited because of damage to nearby property caused by a ‎Covered Cause of Loss, which is defined in the policy as ‎‎"[d]irect physical loss." As already reasoned, COVID-19 does ‎not cause physical loss (nor damage) in any plain or ordinary ‎sense.‎ ‎
  5. Plaintiffs have also invoked the Communicable Disease ‎provision, which covers lost income and extra expenses if a ‎government entity shuts down business operations "due to an ‎outbreak" of a communicable disease "at the insured ‎premises." The Court has reasoned that unlike the provisions ‎discussed above, Communicable Disease coverage does not ‎turn on the existence of physical loss or damage.‎
  6. Plaintiffs have also raised the Sue and Labor provision. The ‎Court has reasoned that this provision specifies certain things ‎an insured must do when seeking reimbursement for covered ‎losses or expenses. These include promptly notifying the ‎insurer when loss or damage occurs, allowing it to inspect the ‎property, taking reasonable steps to protect the property from ‎additional harm, and keeping adequate records regarding ‎expenses incurred-including records of expenses incurred as a ‎result of the duty to protect. The Court has found that Sue and ‎Labor provision does not itself establish coverage. Rather, it ‎imposes obligations on an insured seeking coverage that is ‎outlined elsewhere in the policy.‎
Conclusions of the deciding body

For all these reasons, the Court has concluded that the COVID-19 ‎pandemic undoubtedly caused tremendous financial strain to small ‎businesses like the Centers, but the losses and expenses they allege ‎are simply not covered under the ordinary and unambiguous terms of ‎their insurance policies. Therefore, the district court's judgment has ‎been affirmed. ‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom to conduct a business
  • Right to property
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. freedom to conduct a business
  • Health v. property
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court has not applied balancing techniques.‎

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 1 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, 3 May 2022, No. ‎21-1695‎
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies