As the COVID-19 public health crisis continues to surge globally, the insurance industry has largely closed ranks behind the position that, with few exceptions, commercial property policies are “not designed” to cover pandemic-related losses, including business interruption. But the various justifications advanced by insurance companies for this assertion often do not hold up under scrutiny of the relevant policy language. Insurers have taken an early stand on the threshold issue of whether the actual or threatened presence of coronavirus and/or COVID-19 can even trigger coverage as a matter of law, telling both their insureds and the courts that the virus’s presence does not constitute “physical loss of or damage to property,” the event typically required for property policies to respond. In a decision of potentially national significance on this issue—and a resounding victory for the policyholder plaintiffs—a federal court in Missouri rejected this argument in an August 12, 2020, denial of an insurer’s motion to dismiss. In so doing, the court left the door open for potentially broad recovery for the insureds’ losses under multiple coverages in the policies at issue.