In the case of Philadelphia Eagles Limited Partnership v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-01776-MMB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Baylson, J.), the court denied a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Plaintiff, Philadelphia Eagles, relative to the court’s previous decision to dismiss its Complaint in this coverage action related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, Philadelphia Eagles, LP, asserted that it was forced to shut down or modify operations for its various insured properties due to the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly sustained financial losses as a result. The Defendant insurance carrier had denied coverage under the terms of the policy.
The Plaintiff sought a declaration that its losses were covered by the Defendant’s policy and that the Defendant was estopped from arguing that communicable diseases could not trigger coverage under the policy requiring a physical loss or damage to property to implicate coverage. In its previous decision, the trial court had followed other Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court decisions to grant the Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss.
Here, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied after the court again found that there mere presence of communicable disease at a business location did not render the property sufficiently dangerous to constitute a physical loss or damage that triggered insurance coverage.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this “LINC.”
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Jan. 2, 2025).