BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE AND COVID-19

IMPORTANCE In an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, many states and municipalities across the U.S. undertook

various actions which resulted in businesses limiting or ceasing operations. While initial evidence suggests that these

measures may have had the intended effect of slowing the spread of the virus, they also had a significant negative

impact on the net income of firms across a wide-array of industries. Whether or not business interruption insurance

should cover losses attributed to pandemics is being debated and legislative responses have been proposed, some of

which would require involuntary coverage on a retroactive basis. Industry trade associations estimate that the outcome

of these discussions and proposals could cost property-casualty insurers hundreds of billions of dollars.

OBJECTIVES Our study provides a discussion of the impact of COVID-19 on business interruption losses in the U.S. as

well as an overview of the commonly relied upon ISO Business Income and Extra Expense (BIEE) insurance policy. We

offer an analysis of the language contained in the unendorsed BIEE and summarize the arguments as to why business

interruption insurance should or should not cover pandemic-related losses. Finally, we provide an overview of proposed

approaches to address business interruption losses attributed to current and future pandemics.

EVIDENCE Although COVID-19 losses generally appear to be excluded from coverage, either by way of language that is

present in the policy or through endorsements, some ambiguity exists as to whether the presence of the virus

constitutes physical damage to or alteration of the property and whether coverage for losses due to civil authority

should apply.

FIN

DINGS Business interruption losses due to COVID-19 are estimated to potentially exceed $300 billion per month for

small businesses. Many business owners have sought coverage for declines in net income through their business

interruption insurance policies. In response, carriers and industry groups have stated that pandemic losses are not

intended to be covered under the business interruption insurance policy and that the policies do not include, or even

specifically exclude, pandemic coverage. Some businesses have responded by initiating lawsuits against their insurers.

In addition to these private actions, both state and federal governments have proposed legislation regarding indemnity

for businesses impacted by pandemic losses. Several states proposed legislation to apply retroactive coverage for

COVID-19 business interruption losses, although in some cases the legislation has already been withdrawn. Additionally,

there has been a proposal for the federal government to provide a coverage backstop for catastrophic pandemic losses

similar to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act while some have proposed that only the public sector is capable of covering

pandemic-related losses.

NCLUSION & RELEVANCE Whether or not insurance will cover COVID-19 losses remains an open question and the

answer to that question will ultimately have significant consequences for insurers as well as business owners. It is expected

that even if insurers are successful in arguing that coverage does not exist for these losses, there will likely be significant

legal expenses involved in defending denial-of-coverage and bad-faith lawsuits brought by policyholders while

impending legislation will alter the insurance landscape as it relates to pandemics. We believe that regardless of the

outcome, carriers as well as the ISO are likely to modify their business interruption policies and future demand for this

coverage could be affected.

1 Chiglinsky, K., 2020, “Insurers Worry Virus-Linked Costs May Reach $383 Billion a Month”, Bloomberg, accessed online at

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-30/insurers-worry-virus-linked-costs-may-reach-383-billion-a-month.

BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE AND

COVID-19: COVERAGE

ISSUES AND PUBLIC

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

JILL M. BISCO, PH.D. | STEPHEN G. FIER, PH.D. | DAVID M. POOSER, PH.D.

Journal of Insurance Regulation, 2020 V. 1

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Cassandra Cole and Kathleen McCullough

Co-Editors

Vol. 39, No. 5

Business Interruption Insurance

and COVID-19: Coverage and Issues

and Public Policy Implications

Jill M. Bisco, Ph.D.

Stephen G. Fier, Ph.D.

David M. Pooser, Ph.D.

JIR-ZA-39-05



The NAIC is the authoritative source for insurance industry information. Our expert solutions support

the efforts of regulators, insurers and researchers by providing detailed and comprehensive insurance

information. The NAIC offers a wide range of publications in the following categories:

Accounting & Reporting

Information about statutory accounting principles

and the procedures necessary for filing financial

annual statements and conducting risk-based

capital calculations.

Special Studies

Studies, reports, handbooks and regulatory

research conducted by NAIC members on a variety

of insurance related topics.

Consumer Information

Important answers to common questions about

auto, home, health and life insurance — as well as

buyer’s guides on annuities, long-term care

insurance and Medicare supplement plans.

Statistical Reports

Valuable and in-demand insurance industry-wide

statistical data for various lines of business,

including auto, home, health and life insurance.

Financial Regulation

Useful handbooks, compliance guides and reports

on financial analysis, company licensing, state

audit requirements and receiverships.

Supplementary Products

Guidance manuals, handbooks, surveys and

research on a wide variety of issues.

Legal

Comprehensive collection of NAIC model laws,

regulations and guidelines; state laws on insurance

topics; and other regulatory guidance on antifraud

and consumer privacy.

Capital Markets & Investment Analysis

Information regarding portfolio values and

procedures for complying with NAIC reporting

requirements.

Market Regulation

Regulatory and industry guidance on market-

related issues, including antifraud, product fi ling

requirements, producer licensing and market

analysis.

White Papers

Relevant studies, guidance and NAIC policy

positions on a variety of insurance topics.

NAIC Activities

NAIC member directories, in-depth reporting of

state regulatory activities and official historical

records of NAIC national meetings and other

activities.

For more information about NAIC

publications, visit us at:

http://www.naic.org//prod_serv_home.htm

Printed in the United States of America

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the NAIC.

NAIC Executive Office

444 North Capitol Street, NW

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20001

202.471.3990

NAIC Central Office

1100 Walnut Street

Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106

816.842.3600

NAIC Capital Markets

& Investment Analysis Office

One New York Plaza, Suite 4210

New York, NY 10004

212.398.9000

Editorial Staff of the

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Co-Editors Case Law Review Editor

Cassandra Cole and Kathleen McCullough Olivea Myers

Florida State University NAIC Legal Counsel

Tallahassee, FL Kansas City, MO

Editorial Review Board

Cassandra Cole

Florida State University

Tallahassee, FL

Lee Covington

Insured Retirement Institute

Arlington, VA

Brenda Cude

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Jeffrey Czajkowski

Director, NAIC Center for

Insurance Policy

& Research

Kansas City, MO

Robert Detlefsen

National Association

of Mutual Insurance

Companies

Indianapolis, IN

Bruce Ferguson

American Council of Life

Insurers

Washington, DC

Stephen Fier

University of Mississippi

University, MS

Kevin Fitzgerald

Foley & Lardner

Milwaukee, WI

Robert Hoyt

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Alessandro Iuppa

Zurich North America

Washington, DC

Steven I. Jackson

American Academy of

Actuaries

Washington, DC

Robert Klein

Georgia State University

Atlanta, GA

J. Tyler Leverty

University of Wisconsin-

Madison

Madison, WI

Andre Liebenberg

University of Mississippi

Oxford, MS

David Marlett

Appalachian State

University

Boone, NC

Kathleen McCullough

Florida State University

Tallahassee, FL

Charles Nyce

Florida State University

Tallahassee, FL

Mike Pickens

The Goldwater Taplin

Group

Little Rock, AR

David Sommer

St. Mary’s University

San Antonio, TX

Sharon Tennyson

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

Charles C. Yang

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

Purpose

The Journal of Insurance Regulation is sponsored by the National Association

of Insurance Commissioners. The objectives of the NAIC in sponsoring the

Journal of Insurance Regulation are:

1. To provide a forum for opinion and discussion on major insurance

regulatory issues;

2. To provide wide distribution of rigorous, high-quality research

regarding insurance regulatory issues;

3. To make state insurance departments more aware of insurance

regulatory research efforts;

4. To increase the rigor, quality and quantity of the research efforts on

insurance regulatory issues; and

5. To be an important force for the overall improvement of insurance

regulation.

To meet these objectives, the NAIC will provide an open forum for the

discussion of a broad spectrum of ideas. However, the ideas expressed in the

Journal are not endorsed by the NAIC, the Journal’s editorial staff, or the

Journal’s board.

* Assistant Professor of Finance, University of Akron; 330-972-5436; [email protected].

** Associate Professor of Finance, University of Mississippi; 662-205-0767;

[email protected].

*** Associate Professor of Risk Management and Insurance, St. John’s University; 212-284-7010;

[email protected].

Business Interruption

Insurance and COVID-19:

Coverage and Issues

and Public Policy

Implications

Jill M. Bisco, Ph.D.*

Stephen G. Fier, Ph.D.**

David M. Pooser, Ph.D.***

Abstract

In an effort to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and to

lessen its impact on human health and safety in the U.S., many states and

municipalities required “non-essential” businesses to cease or limit their operations.

These actions had a significant negative impact on the income of firms across many

industries, and some businesses are seeking payment for their losses from their

business interruption insurance policies. Insurers and insurance industry trade

associations claim that these policies were not designed or intended to cover

pandemic losses and that policy features preclude coverage for COVID-19 losses.

However, some businesses, attorneys and government officials disagree with this

stance and contend that insurers should pay COVID-19 business interruption losses,

either voluntarily or involuntarily. In this paper, we discuss provisions contained in

the commonly used Insurance Services Office (ISO) business income insurance

policy, the different ways in which courts have interpreted the policy’s language,

and how these interpretations can affect whether COVID-19 losses are ultimately

covered. We further discuss the response of government officials, the insurance

industry and policyholders to the issue of coverage, as well as proposed actions that

Journal of Insurance Regulation

may result in the payment of claims stemming from both COVID-19 and future

pandemic-related losses.

Introduction

On Dec. 31, 2019, the Chinese government reported a cluster of pneumonia

cases in Wuhan, China. Days later, it was determined that these cases were the result

of a new virus named SARS-CoV-2 (also referred to as the novel coronavirus or the

COVID-19 virus). This new virus began to spread to countries around the world,

infecting more than 7 million individuals in at least 177 countries and resulting in

more than 400,000 deaths as of early June 2020 (Calfas, 2020). As the virus spread,

it began to take hold in the U.S., where the first reported case appeared Jan. 21, 2020

(Taylor, 2020), with some estimating potential U.S. deaths in the thousands or even

millions (Fink, 2020). In an effort to reduce the spread of the virus, cities and states

across the U.S. put shelter-in-place orders into effect, closing or limiting the

operations of public and private businesses and locations.

The goal of these orders

was to reduce the number of individuals in groups or gatherings, thereby reducing

individuals’ exposure to the virus. As of April 9, 2020, only eight states did not have

shelter-in-place mandates in effect (Ortiz and Hauck, 2020). While the objective of

these orders was to limit the spread of the virus and reduce associated deaths, they

also had severe economic ramifications, as “non-essential” businesses were forced

to close and others were forced to limit the hours or extent of their operations.

A survey by MetLife and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dated April 3, 2020,

reported that 25% of small businesses had temporarily shut down during the

pandemic, while 40% of those that had not shut down anticipated doing so

temporarily within two weeks of the survey being taken (MetLife, 2020a).

A May 5, 2020, update to the survey found that 29% of small businesses had

temporarily closed during the prior two-week period and that 22% believed they

were less than two months from permanent closure (MetLife, 2020b). Furthermore,

the April survey found that nearly 50% of small businesses expected it would take

anywhere from six months to one year before the U.S. economy recovered from the

shutdowns.

These orders resulted in many businesses experiencing dramatic

declines in net income, potentially leading to the generation of limited to no income

during the pandemic.



1. Some states also referred to these orders as “stay-at-home” orders. We use the term

“shelter-in-place” in this article to refer to both.

2. States and municipalities defined the terms “essential” and “non-essential” in different

ways, with some states describing most businesses as “non-essential” while others defined

“essential” in a much more liberal way.

3. Another April 2020 survey conducted by Facebook and the Small Business Roundtable

found that 31% of small businesses stopped operating and that more than 10% were facing

permanent closure due to the coronavirus. Additionally, many businesses report operating on a

reduced basis due to social distancing mandates, cessation of in-person activities and shutdowns in

related areas of the economy (Frier and Cheng, 2020).

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



Once cities and states in the U.S. began implementing shelter-in-place orders,

business owners and public policymakers began to question whether the loss of

income resulting from the COVID-19 shutdown should be covered under the

business interruption coverage forms that are commonly used in the U.S. As detailed

below, insurers have asserted that the policies were never intended to cover

pandemic claims and point to exclusionary language found in both the unendorsed

policies and policy endorsements, while policyholders and their attorneys have

begun filing suits against their insurers over what they argue is inclusive policy

language or ambiguities in an attempt to recoup some of their financial losses.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of some of the major issues

surrounding business interruption insurance and the COVID-19 pandemic, possible

coverages available and limitations under standard business income insurance

coverage forms, and the ways in which lawmakers at the state and federal levels, as

well as insurers, have proposed addressing these problems.

Issues Surrounding COVID-19

As shelter-in-place orders were mandated by state and local governments, and

with guidelines or requirements to engage in “social distancing,” businesses across

the country were required to close or change their business practices or distribution

structure.

In many states, non-essential businesses (e.g., beauty parlors, nail salons

and tattoo parlors) were ordered closed by governmental or regulatory bodies

(e.g., Alcorn, 2020), and other businesses, such as restaurants, were ordered to serve

their product either curbside or by delivery only.

Some businesses, such as grocery

stores, were permitted to continue normal operations but were encouraged or

ordered to limit the number of individuals permitted in the store at any given time

(e.g., Butler, 2020; Muccigrosso, 2020). These restrictions have had a significant

impact on the revenue and profits of many industries. According to

David A. Sampson, president and CEO of the American Property Casualty

Insurance Association (APCIA), the loss of business income for small enterprises

could be $220 billion to $383 billion per month.

It is possible that there are as many

as 30 million potential business interruption claims from small businesses that

suffered losses as a result of COVID-19 (Simpson, 2020a). Given the economic

significance of the lost income related to the COVID-19 pandemic, policyholders



4. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2020a) defines social

distancing as “keeping space between oneself and others outside the home.” The CDC

recommendation is to maintain a distance of at least 6 feet between any two individuals, avoid

group gatherings and avoid crowded locations.

5. Essential businesses typically include grocery stores, health care providers, pharmacies and

banks, as well as other entities deemed necessary by local or state governments (Snider, 2020).

6. An April 15, 2020, report by the U.S. Department of Commerce highlights that U.S. retail

trade sales were down 6.2% and clothing store sales were down 50.7% in March 2020 from

March 2019, while food and beverage sales were up by 28.0% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

Journal of Insurance Regulation

are looking for ways to cover such losses. While the U.S. government committed

to a $2 trillion economic relief plan (Shabad and Edelman, 2020), many businesses

are seeking payment for lost income under their business interruption

insurance policies.

For many states, the response to COVID-19 has shifted from slowing the spread

of the virus to a focus on economic reopening and recovery. Some of the first states

to reverse shelter-in-place mandates and reduce restrictions in March 2020 included

Georgia, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

As of early June 2020, all states and

U.S. territories had eased restrictions that were put in place (Elassar, 2020). It is

unclear how reopening will impact the spread of COVID-19; however, it is evident

that it will ease some of the economic impact placed on businesses during the

shutdown: unemployment figures improved significantly in May relative to the prior

two months’ job numbers and there is some evidence that many consumers wish to

resume at least some of their pre-pandemic activities (Mitchell, 2020).

Business Interruption Insurance

When businesses face a slowdown or cessation of business operations, the

financial losses associated with a reduction in net income are often addressed

through the use of a business interruption insurance policy.

These policies are

intended to cover instances where a covered loss leads to a decline in revenue, an

increase in expenses, or both. Insurers are not required to report financial data for

business interruption insurance on a separate line-item basis in their statutory filings,

which creates challenges in fully understanding the U.S. business interruption

insurance market.

While limited information regarding the market is available,

Cohn, Barlyn and Hussain (2020) report that McKinsey & Company estimate global

business interruption insurance premiums at roughly $40 billion. In the U.S.,

commercial property insurance premiums (which include business interruption

insurance) totaled approximately $4.5 billion on a monthly basis in 2019

(APCIA, 2020).

Although data are limited, a recent survey conducted by the



7. For example, The Council for Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB) found that 75% of

respondents experienced an increase in business interruption claims in the first quarter of 2020.

8. South Carolina reduced restrictions for furniture, clothing, department and sporting goods

stores (Smith et al., 2020), while Oklahoma allowed personal care businesses, restaurants, dining

rooms, movie theaters, sporting venues and gyms to reopen (Elassar, 2020). Georgia began

allowing gyms, bowling alleys, nail salons, movie theaters and restaurants to reopen

(Solomon, 2020).

9. Risk managers commonly identify business interruption as one of the most significant risks

their businesses face (e.g., Aon, 2019; Allianz, 2020)

10. Partly to address this issue, on May 11, 2020, the NAIC issued a business interruption

data call requiring insurers to disclose business interruption premium, claim and loss data

(NAIC, 2020a)

11. It is estimated that premium volume for business interruption insurance in 2020 will

decline by 7% to 13% in the U.S. and the U.K. (Hartwig, 2020).

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner found that, as of

March 15, 2020, “more than 194,000 commercial policies had at least one type of

business interruption or civil authority coverage in effect” and estimated premiums

for these policies were $437 million (Sams, 2020a).

To put this value into

perspective, total commercial property (non-liability) insurance premiums in

Washington in 2018 were more than $523.2 million and total direct premiums

written for all property/casualty (P/C) business were approximately $12.85 billion

(NAIC, 2019).

13,14

In terms of pricing trends, as illustrated in Figure 1, quarterly reports issued by

The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB) suggest an upward trend in

business interruption insurance rate changes from the third quarter of 2017 to the

first quarter of 2020, where the average rate increase in 2020 was 6.70%

(CIAB, 2020).

While the average rate change was 6.7%, the CIAB reports

significant variation in the first quarter of 2020, with a high of a 28.8% rate increase

and minimum of a 4.5% rate decrease. For comparative purposes, the CIAB reports

that, on average, premiums increased by 12% for commercial property insurance,

9.6% for commercial auto insurance and 17.3% for umbrella coverage in the first

quarter of 2020.

Figure 1

Business Interruption Insurance Rate Changes, Q1 2009 to Q1 2020

Values reported on the y-axis represent business interruption insurance percentage rate changes.

Data used for the construction of this figure were obtained from quarterly surveys conducted by

The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB), which are available at

https://www.ciab.com/market-intel/pc-market-index-survey/historical-pc-market-index-surveys.



12. To our knowledge, this level of information is currently only publicly available for the

state of Washington.

13. As noted previously, premiums for business interruption insurance are not separately

reported by insurers and thus cannot be separated from the reported values.

14. Direct premiums written in Washington account for less than 2% of total premiums

reported by U.S. P/C insurers (NAIC, 2019).

15. Survey respondents are broker members of the CIAB.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Although relatively little is known about the size of the business interruption

insurance market or the primary writers of this line of business in the U.S., some

evidence exists regarding the demand for this important line of business. A survey

conducted by Nationwide in 2017 found that only 29% of small business owners

that were surveyed had business interruption insurance (Nationwide, 2017). This is

particularly significant as the U.S. Small Business Association’s (SBA) Office of

Advocacy reports that 99.99% of all business in the U.S. are “small businesses”

(SBA, 2019) and that small businesses “account for almost 44 percent of

U.S. economic activity” (SBA, 2018).

While not used by all businesses, Wilson (2020) states that the ISO Business

Income (and Extra Expense) (BIEE) Coverage Form (CP 00 30 10 12) is “probably

the most common business income coverage policy found in the insurance

marketplace.”

The business income insuring agreement located in the unendorsed

BIEE states the following:

“We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain

due to the necessary ‘suspension’ of your ‘operations’ during the

“period of restoration”. The ‘suspension’ must be caused by direct

physical loss of or damage to property at premises which are

described in the Declarations and for which a Business Income

Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations. The loss

or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause

of Loss.”

In addition to providing coverage for loss of income, the BIEE can also cover

additional expenses that are incurred in order to continue operations following the

occurrence of a covered loss. Furthermore, coverage is also available for instances

where net income declines due to civil authorities’ prohibiting access to the

insured’s premises as a result of a covered loss at property not owned or used by the

insured. However, as we discuss below, differing interpretations of key terms found

in the BIEE result in significant disagreement as to whether the policy should in fact

cover business interruption claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.



16. The SBA’s Office of Advocacy defines a business as “small” if it has fewer than

500 employees (SBA, 2019), while the Nationwide survey classifies a business as “small” if it has

fewer than 300 employees.

17. It should be noted that not all insurers use the ISO form discussed in this article and some

have their own coverage forms that may offer broader or more restrictive coverage. Furthermore,

smaller businesses frequently use the ISO Business Owners Policy (BOP), which contains

coverage for property damage, liability and business interruption.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



Interpretation of the Business Income

Insurance Policy

Insurers have consistently asserted that business interruption claims stemming

from COVID-19 were never intended to be covered under the business income

policy, while policyholders and their attorneys argue that the language in the policy

provides coverage.

In this section, we discuss the various provisions of the BIEE

policy that have created questions regarding coverages and exclusions.

These include whether the suspension of operations

is the result of direct physical

loss or damage to property, whether the loss is in fact a covered loss, whether

COVID-19 should fall under the definition of “pollutants” and, finally, whether the

additional civil authority coverage should apply.

At the time of this writing, the insurance industry has asserted that the BIEE

coverage does not apply to COVID-19 related losses because the slowdown or

cessation of business operations has not been the result of direct physical loss, is not

a covered loss and may even be excluded under the policy. Each of these issues are

discussed below. The NAIC has further stated that “Business interruption policies

were generally not designed or priced to provide coverage against communicable

diseases, such as COVID-19, and therefore include exclusions for that risk”

(NAIC, 2020b).

Direct Physical Loss or Damage to Property

One of the points that is frequently made by insurers is that the BIEE insuring

agreement requires that a suspension of operations must be the result of “direct

physical loss” or “damage to property at premises.” The policy does not provide a

definition for the term “direct physical loss,” nor is there a further discussion

regarding what is meant by “damage to property at premises.” This is potentially

problematic for insurers, as it is often argued that when ambiguities in language

exist in a policy, the court should find in favor of the insured.

While the term



18. This appears to be a longstanding stance that has been held by the industry. For example,

in 2006, the director of inland marine for the AAIS stated that “Property policies were never

intended to be a source of recovery for losses arising from organisms that cause disease” (Insurance

Journal, 2006). Additionally, even before U.S. business closures due to COVID-19, a Wall Street

Journal article discussed the common exclusion of epidemics by business interruption policies

following the 2002 SARS outbreak (Yang, 2020).

19. The unendorsed BIEE defines suspension as “a. The slowdown or cessation of your

business activities; or b. That a part of all of the described premises is rendered untenantable, if

coverage for Business Income Including ‘Rental Value’ or ‘Rental Value’ applies.”

20. As noted by Henry (2017), “One common alternative to traditional contract law is strict

contra proferentem, which interprets ambiguous terms against the drafter without reviewing

extrinsic or parol evidence.” However, the author also notes that an alternative to contra

proferentem is the use of the reasonable expectations doctrine, in which the policy’s language is

interpreted using the “reasonable person standard.”

Journal of Insurance Regulation

“physical damage” is not defined in the policy, many courts have interpreted the

term to mean a “distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration of the property”

(Plitt, 2013). Using this definition of “physical damage,” it would appear that the

BIEE should not cover virus-related losses, as the loss did not result in the “physical

alteration of the property.”

While some courts have argued that physical alteration of the property is

necessary to show physical damage occurred, others have begun to use more liberal

interpretations of physical damage to include loss of use (Plitt, 2013). For instance,

in the case of Gregory Packaging, Inc. (GPI) v. Travelers Property Casualty

Company of America, a New Jersey court determined that the release of ammonia

in a GPI facility in 2010 still constituted “direct physical loss of or damage to” the

property. Gregory Packaging argued that the release of the ammonia “physically

incapacitated its facility,” that government authorities prohibited access to the

facility, and that no one could enter the facility following the release (Gregory

Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2014).

While this interpretation may seem inconsistent with the commonly accepted

definition requiring “distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration of the property,” in

the case of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Insurance

Company (2001), the court stated that “To be sure, there are circumstances in which

the actual release of asbestos from building materials can constitute physical

damage or loss. When this has been the case, however, the courts have described

the level of asbestos release that will constitute physical damage in terms requiring

the magnitude and extent of asbestos release to be relatively substantial.”

However, in the case of COVID-19, the issue is further complicated by the fact

that the CDC has stated that the virus can be spread both person-to-person and with

“contact with contaminated surfaces or objects” (CDC, 2020b). That the virus can

be spread by way of contact with property may support the argument that the loss is

attributed to physical damage to property. Using the interpretation offered by

Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, one

could argue that business interruption claims should be covered even though

alteration to the property did not occur.

Insurers and courts may also consider that

some governmental orders to shut down businesses “have specifically cited property

damage from COVID-19” (Congressional Research Service, 2020).

Covered Causes of Loss and Exclusions

The unendorsed BIEE business income insuring agreement states that coverage

applies when the loss is due to a “Covered Cause of Loss.” The term “Covered

Cause of Loss” is linked to the cause of loss form that applies to the policy, which

may either be a named perils form (i.e., the “Basic” and “Broad” forms) or an open

perils form (i.e., the “Special” form).

The named perils forms specifically list the



21. An issue related to the COVID-19 is that many business interruption losses are the result

of preemptive measures to avoid contamination and spread of the virus, rather than an actual

outbreak or contamination of the insured virus. Unlike cases with ammonia or asbestos

contamination, it may be impossible to determine if the virus was present within a business

(Lalor, 2020).

22. Open peril forms are sometimes referred to as “all risks” coverage.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



perils that are covered, while the opens peril cause of loss forms are often interpreted

to cover perils that are not explicitly excluded in the form. Neither the Basic nor

Broad cause of loss forms list communicable diseases or “bacteria” as covered

causes of loss and both include exclusions related to “Fungus,” “Wet Rot,”

“Dry Rot” and “Bacteria.” While the term “Fungus” is defined in the policy, the

term “bacteria” is not. A similar exclusion is also found in the ISO Special Cause of

Loss Form (CP 10 30 10 12), which would seem to eliminate coverage in the event

that the term “bacteria” were to include a virus. However, while the policy does

provide an exclusion for “bacteria,” it does not explicitly include exclusions related

to viruses, communicable diseases or pandemics. The lack of an explicit exclusion

in the unendorsed BIEE and cause of loss forms may then arguably afford a

policyholder with coverage.

Issues also arise as to whether a virus should be interpreted as a “pollutant.”

This is of importance, as the unendorsed BIEE does include some language

addressing “pollutants.” In particular, the policy states that the period of restoration:

“does not include any increased period required due to the

enforcement of or compliance with any ordinance or law

that…[r]equires any insured or others to test for, monitor, clean

up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize, or in any way

responds to or assesses the effects of ‘pollutants.’”

While the number of definitions found in the unendorsed BIEE is fairly limited

relative to many commercial insurance policies, the term “pollutants” is defined in

the policy. The policy defines “pollutants” as:

“any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,

including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and

waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditions

or reclaimed.”

Similar to the issue of “direct physical damage,” some courts have ruled that a

virus may not be a pollutant and may thus be covered. Boggs (2020) argues that the

term “contaminant” includes a virus, resulting in the exclusion of these losses.

However, as noted by Kroeger and Park (2020), some courts have found that viruses

are not pollutants, so this is an issue that will likely be resolved in the courts.

Although debate exists regarding whether an exclusion will allow insurers to

avoid coverage or if any coverage resides in the unendorsed forms, an endorsement



23. While this is commonly the case, Berry (2020) notes that requiring interpretation of policy

language does not necessarily mean an ambiguity exists. This is illustrated in the case of

Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Woodlief (1978), in which the court stated, “ambiguity is not

invariably present when analysis is necessary to interpret the policy.”

Journal of Insurance Regulation

does exist which explicitly excludes losses due to virus or bacteria.

This

endorsement, titled “Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria” (CP 01 40 07 06),

states that the insurer “will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from

any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing

physical distress, illness or disease.” The endorsement further states that the

exclusion applies to forms associated with the commercial coverage, including

“business income, extra expense or action of civil authority.” In the event this

endorsement is attached to the policy, it would seem that coverage under the BIEE

for COVID-19-related claims should not apply. While it is not known what

proportion of commercial policies include this exclusion, Ayers (2020a) states that

“the vast majority…contain exclusions for viral/bacterial contamination.”

This is

further supported by Robinson (2020), who notes that most states require the

attachment of the CP 01 40 07 06 endorsement.

Civil Authority

An important additional coverage that resides in the unendorsed BIEE is

coverage for loss due to the actions of civil authorities. Specifically, the policy states

that coverage exists when civil authorities “prohibit access to the described

premises” as a result of physical damage caused by a covered cause of loss at a

property that is not the insured’s property (emphasis by the authors). However,

coverage for civil action would require several concurrent facts. First, that the courts

employ an interpretation of physical damage which does not require the actual

alteration of property (as discussed above). Second, as noted by Schiffer, Garavaglia

and Mihocik (2020), that access was in fact prohibited due to physical damage and

that there is a “nexus to a direct physical loss.” Third, the action taken by the civil

authorities must be due to a covered cause of loss.

Additional issues that arise are whether civil authority actually “prohibited”

access to the property and whether the civil authority’s order occurred prior to the

occurrence of a physical loss. In the case of the former, while some businesses were

in fact mandated to cease operations, “frequently, the “order” of civil authority is

the nature of an “advisory” or “voluntary” evacuation” (Berry, 2020). If a business

chose to suspend operations in the best interest of its customers and/or employees,

the question then arises as to whether the suspension of operations was in fact due

to civil authorities prohibiting access to the premises. In the case of the latter,

according to Schiffer, et al. (2020), in prior cases of business interruption due to

catastrophe evacuations, if the evacuation order was created prior to physical



24. A.M. Best notes that insurers introduced exclusions related to communicable diseases as

a result of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in the early 2000s

(Simpson, 2020b).

25. A similar endorsement exists for the Businessowners Coverage Form (BP 06 01 01 07).

26. The provision also requires that the damaged premises be located within one mile of the

insured property.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



damage occurring, courts have not required insurers to pay for these business

interruption events.

Given the set of requirements that must be met in order to successfully

demonstrate that the civil authority additional coverage should apply to a given

claim and the unique circumstances surrounding the suspension of operations during

the COVID-19 pandemic, claimants may find it difficult to recover business

interruption losses through this additional coverage in the unendorsed BIEE.

State and Federal Responses to COVID-19

Claims

As discussed above, significant uncertainty exists regarding how courts will

interpret the language in the ISO BIEE coverage form or any attached endorsements.

However, a potentially more important source of uncertainty arises from proposed

state-level legislation. In response to questions regarding whether BIEE policies

were intended to cover business interruption due to communicable diseases or

viruses, state lawmakers in at least nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia

initially proposed bills that would require insurers to cover these losses on a

retroactive basis.

In general, the bills would require insurers to offer retroactive

coverage for business interruption losses stemming from the coronavirus and

pandemics (e.g., Adriano, 2020; Wilkinson, 2020a). The bills typically focus

on providing this retroactive coverage for small business (i.e., those with fewer

than 100 to 150 full-time employees); some bills would allow those insurers paying

these claims to apply for reimbursement from the state, with reimbursement funds

coming from an assessment on insurers writing P/C business in the state.

However,

several proposed bills have already been withdrawn or amended to remove wording

related to retroactive coverage for BIEE. For instance, Louisiana SB 477—which

originally called for insurers doing business in the state to retroactively cover BIEE

claims—is being amended to remove the retroactive coverage. The proposed

amended bill would require insurers to clarify exclusions on BIEE policies

(Wilkinson, 2020c). The District of Columbia City Council also decided not to move

forward with a retroactive insurance coverage mandate (Weinberger, 2020).

Louisiana proposed an alternative approach that differs from those discussed

above. Under SB 495, insurers would have the option to contribute to a “Business

Compensation Fund.” Insurers that choose to contribute to this fund would receive



27. These states include Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina (Giordano et al., 2020; National Association

of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), 2020).

28. Although the passage of laws requiring retroactive business interruption coverage has

been discussed in a number of states, questions remain as to whether the U.S. Constitution would

prohibit this type of action (e.g., Nevins and Lewin, 2020a; Pierson and Gallagher, 2020;

Tager, White and Hamilton, 2020).

Journal of Insurance Regulation

immunity from COVID-19 bad-faith claims, while insurers that choose not to

contribute would not receive this immunity. Under the terms of the proposed bill,

insurers writing business in Louisiana could participate by contributing “the greater

of $50 million or 80% of the aggregate policy limits for “all commercial policies”

that the insurer has in force in Louisiana on March 11, 2020, or anytime thereafter

during the state of emergency” (White and Breen, 2020).

In addition to the various bills that have been proposed at the state-level, the

U.S. Congress has also encouraged the insurance industry to cover business

interruption claims stemming from COVID-19. On March 18, a group of lawmakers

in the U.S. House of Representatives (House) wrote, “As the world community

continues to navigate the impact and response of the declared global health

emergency caused by COVID-19, we urge your member companies and brokers to

make financial losses related to COVID-19 and other infectious disease-related

losses part of their commercial business interruption coverage for policyholders”

(Ayers, 2020a). In response to this request, four insurance industry trade groups

responded by noting that the policies were never intended to cover these types

of losses and that the federal government is best suited to address the large economic

losses associated with the pandemic.

Beyond the federal government simply encouraging insurers to voluntarily

cover these losses, a caucus of Republicans and Democrats in the House referred to

as the “Problem Solvers Caucus” has proposed the Health Crisis and Economic

Revival Package, which includes the declaration of the pandemic as a public health

crisis that would be a “qualifying event” for business interruption policies. Similar

to the aforementioned state proposals, this would have the effect of requiring

insurers to pay for business income losses attributed to the coronavirus

(Grande, Symington and Wienecke, 2020).

During a press conference held April 11, 2020, President Donald J. Trump also

encouraged insurers to cover the loss of income resulting from COVID-19. The

president acknowledged that some policies may exclude pandemics, but went on to

state that many small businesses have been paying for business interruption

coverage “for a lot of years” but have never filed a claim and now, “all of a sudden

they need it.” The president stated that he would like insurers to pay the pandemic

losses “if it’s fair” (Vazquez, 2020). However, in response to the president’s

comments, several Republican senators cautioned about the impact on the insurance

industry over requiring this retroactive coverage, stating that such an action “would

undoubtedly undermine our insurance system and create major unintended

consequences for new contractual relationships going forward (Ayers, 2020b;

Scism, 2020).

Looking to the future, the House Financial Services Committee has proposed

another solution in the form of the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act (PRIA) of 2020.

The PRIA would operate in a manner similar to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act

(TRIA), where insurers would provide coverage for pandemics and a federal



29. The four trade groups are the APCIA, NAMIC, the CIAB and the Independent Insurance

Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA).

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



reinsurance backstop would be available that would have the effect of limiting total

insurer losses. According to H.R. 7011, a bill proposed by U.S. Rep.

Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the PRIA program would be voluntary and the federal

government would begin participating once aggregate industry losses exceed

$250 million. Once triggered, the federal government would be responsible for

95% of losses in excess of an insurer-specific deductible (equal to 5% of the

insurer’s prior-year direct premiums earned) and aggregate losses would be capped

at $750 billion annually (Sclafane, 2020).

In April 2020, two additional bills were introduced in the House, both of which

would provide small businesses with business interruption insurance during future

national emergencies. H.R. 6497, called the Never Again Small Business Protection

Act, was introduced April 24 (Fitzpatrick, 2020). This bill would require that

BIEE coverage be provided for business and nonprofits for BIEE losses that result

from any federal, state or local government-ordered business shutdown after the

declaration of a national emergency. The bill calls for the coverage to apply when

the business is interrupted for at least 30 days, requires that the business not

terminate any employees’ employment during the national emergency, and requires

that the employer maintains employees’ health coverage during the national

emergency. The bill does allow the policyholder to waive the coverage via a written

statement and insurers would also be permitted to exclude coverage if the

policyholder fails to pay premiums associated with the coverage. As part of the bill,

the government would put into place a federal backstop that would cover the costs

to insurers in order to help ensure the stability of the insurance industry

(Fitzpatrick, 2020).

The second bill proposed by the House, H.R. 6494, is called the Business

Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020. This act would “ensure that

businesses who purchase interruption insurance won’t get their claims denied

because of major events, such as viral pandemics, forced closure of businesses,

mandatory evacuations, and public safety power shutoffs” (Fitzpatrick, 2020).

Similar to H.R. 6497, this bill would allow insurers to deny coverage if premiums

are not paid; however, it does not require policyholders to retain employees or

maintain their health coverage for the business interruption coverage to apply.

Insurer Responses to COVID-19 Claims

The APCIA has estimated that the COVID-19 shutdown could cost insurers up

to $383 billion for one month of business interruption claims to small businesses

(Chiglinsky, 2020). To put this cost in context, the Insurance Information Institute

(III) (2019) states that total insured losses associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks

were $47.1 billion, while insurers in the U.S. P/C market had approximately



30. As of 2020, federal participation for terrorism losses under TRIA begins after insured

losses exceed $200 million and the program is capped at $100 billion (III, 2019).

Journal of Insurance Regulation

$812 billion in policyholders’ surplus in the third quarter of 2019

(Insurance Journal, 2020a).

Industry advocates argue that the policies were not

priced to include coverage for communicable diseases such as the COVID-19 virus,

so paying these claims would not only result in significant loss payments, but could

also reduce the ability of some insurers to pay for other covered claims and

ultimately increase insolvency risk for some insurers.

32,33

Additional claim costs

would also have the effect of reducing insurers’ available investable funds, which

are an important source of insurer profit.

Rather than the industry bearing the large costs associated with these claims,

insurers have supported the “COVID-19 Business and Employee Continuity and

Recovery Fund,” which would be responsible for providing federal assistance to

businesses and workers that are adversely affected by the pandemic. In particular,

the fund would “help businesses retain and rehire employees, maintain worker

benefits, and help cover operating expenses such as rent. It may also provide funds

for payroll, lost income of sick employees, and lost business revenues but not

profits” (Simpson, 2020c). This particular approach would be similar to the

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund that was created to address losses

associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

While insurers (as well as agents and

brokers) may be involved in the process of handling application filings and

reviewing those filings, they would not actually be financially responsible for the

loss payments (Wilkinson, 2020b). Another proposal offered by P/C trade

organizations is the Business Continuity Protection Program (BCPP). This program

would operate similar to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and would

provide businesses with the option to purchase “revenue replacement coverage”

which would provide coverage for up to 80% of the business’s payroll and other

expenses. Under this arrangement, loss payments would be made by the federal

government through the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(Insurance Journal, 2020b).

Just as with the NFIP, while losses would be paid by

the federal government, businesses would have the ability to purchase coverage

through agents and carriers.



31. It is unclear how much of the $812 billion would be applied toward business interruption

claims. Not all insurers offer business income insurance coverage or commercial insurance, which

means some portion of surplus would not be available for these claims. According to a 2018 Federal

Insurance Office report, commercial insurance premiums made up about 46% of P/C sector

revenue in 2018.

32. For example, the president of the Ohio Insurance Institute stated that such retroactive

coverage “would likely wipe-out a number of Ohio insurance companies” (Jones, 2020).

33. Two of the central tenets of insurance are that insurable risks should not be catastrophic

and they should be diversifiable (Böhme, Laube and Riek, 2019). To some degree, the industry’s

argument that these types of losses were never intended to be covered by the issued policies is

supported by the fact that both of these tenets are clearly violated.

34. The purpose of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund is to compensate

individuals who were injured or killed as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks or during the process

of removing debris (September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, 2020).

35. Under this proposed program, businesses opting to purchase this coverage would receive

aid “…once there is a presidential viral emergency declaration” (Insurance Journal, 2020b).

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



Although carriers and industry trade groups have responded to proposed

legislation and offered alternative approaches to addressing future pandemic-related

business interruption losses, there is currently little publicly available evidence

suggesting that either insurers or the ISO are revising policy language. While it is

unclear whether insurers will eventually make such changes, the ISO did issue two

non-filed advisory endorsements in February 2020 that allowed for business income

and extra expense coverage for civil authority losses attributed to the coronavirus

pandemic (IRMI, 2020).

As noted by IRMI (2020), these endorsements are similar

to advisory endorsements that were created in 2014 in response to the Ebola virus,

and Wilson (2020) argues that the purpose of these new endorsements is to

effectively restate the fact that the unendorsed ISO forms were never intended to

provide coverage for these types of losses. Finally, Nevins and Lewin (2020b) point

out that even if insurers or the ISO have not made additional changes to policies, in

the future “there may be further responses, including specific exclusions

for coronavirus.”

Policyholder Responses to COVID-19 Claims

The aforementioned discussions address the issue of legislative and insurer

responses to these events, as well as proposed solutions to similar losses in the

future. However, another looming question is how insured businesses will respond.

The response by insureds will largely be dependent on how insurers choose to

interpret the policies and whether some will voluntarily cover pandemic-related

business interruption claims. At the time of this writing, it appears that insurers

intend to deny business interruption claims stemming from COVID-19, with some

insurers publicly stating this fact. For example, Travelers, Hartford and Chubb have

each signaled that they intend to deny COVID-19 business interruption claims.



36. The two new forms are titled “Business Interruption: Limited Coverage for Certain Civil

Authority Orders Relating to Coronavirus” and “Business Interruption: Limited Coverage for

Certain Civil Authority Orders Relating to Coronavirus (Including Orders Restricting Some Modes

of Public Transportation).”

37. Travelers (2020) has stated the following: “Insurance for business interruption can

provide coverage when a policy holder suffers a loss of income due to direct physical loss or

damage to covered property at its location or another location. It does not cover loss of income due

to market conditions, a slowdown of economic activity or a general fear of contamination. Nor

does the policy provide coverage for cancellations, suspensions and shutdowns that are

implemented to limit the spread of the coronavirus. These are not a result of direct physical loss or

damage. Accordingly, business interruption losses resulting from these types of events do not

present covered losses under our property coverage forms.” The Hartford (2020) has also issued

the following statement: “Most property insurance includes business interruption coverage, which

often includes civil authority and dependent property coverage. This is generally designed to cover

losses that result from direct physical loss or damage to property caused by hurricanes, fires, wind

damage or theft and is not designed to apply in the case of a virus.” Finally, Chubb’s CEO said

that business interruption insurance would not cover COVID-19-related claims because coverage

requires physical damage (Stempel, 2020).

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Not surprisingly, the denial of these claims has resulted in a significant number of

lawsuits against carriers that have issued BIEE coverage.

The suits brought by

insured businesses commonly assert that their claims have been wrongfully denied,

there is a breach of contract and/or request declaratory judgment that the plaintiff’s

business interruption policy should cover COVID-19 claims.

The outcomes of

these suits remain unclear, but they will ultimately dictate whether insurers will be

responsible for covering business interruption claims stemming from pandemic-

related losses outside of any legislative actions.

In addition to increased litigation activity surrounding COVID-19 claims,

there has also been a proposal put forth by the Business Interruption Group (BIG),

a restaurant and hospitality-focused organization that asserts business interruption

claims should be paid by the insurance industry. Under the proposed program, called

the “BIG Insurance Relief Act,” insurers that issued policies without a virus

exclusion could voluntarily pay business interruption claims stemming from the

COVID-19 pandemic and then receive reimbursement from the federal government

(Insurance Journal, 2020b). An attorney representing BIG described this proposal

as a “compromise” that would allow insureds to receive payments for their business

interruption losses while reducing the costs associated with future legal action.

Although the proposed program supports the use of federal subsidies to cover these

claims, details regarding how the program would be structured and administered are

currently limited.

The response by insureds over coverage for pandemic-related claims may

extend well beyond litigation. In particular, while it is anticipated that businesses

will continue to bring new lawsuits against insurers for claims, it is also predicted

that the demand for business interruption coverage will likely be affected.

For instance, respondents to a survey administered by the CIAB (2020) indicated

that there was a 47% increase in the demand for business interruption insurance in

the first quarter of 2020, while in the fourth quarter of 2019 there was only an

18% increase in demand. The CIAB notes that at least part of the increase was

“purely driven by companies looking for coverage that includes viruses/pandemics.”

In addition to the increase identified by the CIAB, Banham (2020) notes that recent

demand for pandemic-related parametric business interruption insurance has been

“soaring.” Though some evidence points to a potential increase in the demand for

business interruption coverage, the possibility also exists that demand could decline

if businesses question the value of the coverage, lose trust in their insurer’s ability

or willingness to cover claims, or decide that it is unclear as to the types of losses

that could be covered under the policy.



38. Sams (2020b) notes that more than 100 lawsuits were filed as of May 20, 2020.

39. Recent suits include Big Onion Tavern Group LLC et al. v. Society Insurance Company;

Cajun Conti, LLC et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London; French Laundry Partners,

LP dba The French Laundry, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al.; Legal Sea Foods

LLC v Strathmore Insurance Co.; Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance; Simon Wiesenthal

Center Inc. et al v. Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the states to place restrictions on the ability of

businesses to operate, which has resulted in substantial economic losses across the

country. As the states have begun either easing restrictions or completely

eliminating “shelter-in-place” mandates, there currently exists a debate over the

coverage of COVID-19 business interruption claims by U.S. insurers. In support of

coverage for these claims are arguments revolving around the interpretation of the

term “direct physical damage,” the definition of “pollutants,” the exclusion of

“bacteria” and whether the civil authority additional coverage should apply. From a

policy interpretation perspective, the existence of endorsements that specifically

prohibit coverage for losses stemming from viruses will likely be used to fend off

many of these claims. However, even with such language, it appears the most

significant risk facing insurers is not necessarily potential ambiguity that exists in

the policy, but rather uncertainty regarding government-required retroactive

coverage. In the event the states and/or the federal government do in fact pass laws

that require insurers to pay for these losses, which presumably were never intended

to be covered, it is anticipated that insurers will dig in for a prolonged legal battle

with the government and policyholders. Even without federal intervention, litigation

stemming from denied COVID-19 business interruption claims has been described

by one attorney as potentially “the largest civil litigation battle in human history”

(Ayers, 2020c).

While insurers moved to exclude viruses, pandemics and epidemics from

business interruption policies following the SARS outbreak in 2002–2003, it

appears that some of the language used in at least the ISO standard business

interruption policy remains open to some interpretation. Following the COVID-19

pandemic, it may be expected that the ISO and insurance carriers that provide their

own business interruption policies will revisit this policy language. Insurers that

continue to offer insurance against epidemic or pandemic business interruption will

likely want to provide precise wording about coverages and to consider an

appropriate premium for this coverage.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

References

Adriano, L., 2020. “State Looks at Legislation to Void Coronavirus Exclusion

Clauses,” Insurance Business America, March 30. Accessed April 11, 2020, at

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/state-looks-

at-legislation-to-void-coronavirus-exclusion-clauses-218342.aspx.

Alcorn, C., 2020. “Hair Salons, Tattoo Parlors and Other Beauty Shops Ordered to

Close Indefinitely in Four States,” CNN, March 20. Accessed April 15, 2020,

at https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/business/coronavirus-barbershops-

salons/index.html.

Allianz, 2020. “Allianz Risk Barometer.” Accessed May 31, 2020, at

https://www.agcs.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/agcs/agcs/reports/Al

lianz-Risk-Barometer-2020.pdf.

American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), 2020. “APCIA

Releases Update to Business Interruption Analysis,” April 28.

Aon, 2019. “Global Risk Management Survey.” Accessed May 28, 2020, at

https://www.aon.com/getmedia/8d5ad510-1ae5-4d2b-a3d0-

e241181da882/2019-Aon-Global-Risk-Management-Survey-Report.aspx.

Ayers, E., 2020a. “Insurers Decline Congress’ Request to Pay All COVID-19

Business Interruption Losses,” Advisen, March 23.

Ayers, E., 2020b. “Insurers Should Pay Out on Pandemic Business Interruption

Claims, Trump Says,” Advisen, April 13.

Ayers, E., 2020c. “Business Interruption Group Proposes Voluntary ‘Compromise’

for Insurers,” Advisen, May 26.

Banham, R., 2020. “This Insurance Would Have Helped in Coronavirus Crisis but

Nobody Bought It,” Insurance Journal, April 3.

Berry, D., 2020. “COVID-19 – When Civil Authorities Take Over, Are You

Covered?,” IRMI. Accessed April 10, 2020, at

https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/when-civil-authorities-take-

over-are-you-covered.

Boggs, C.J., 2020. “Coronavirus (COVID-19): Does Business Interruption

Respond?,” Insurance Journal, March 24. Accessed April 16, 2020, at

https://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/big-i-

insights/2020/03/24/562253.htm.

Böhme, R., S. Laube and M. Riek, 2019. “A Fundamental Approach to Cyber Risk

Analysis,” Variance Journal, 12(2): 161–185.

Butler, G., 2020. “More Portland-Area Grocery Stores Limit Number of Customers,

Reduce Store Hours Due to Coronavirus Crisis,” The Oregonian, April 8.

Accessed April 13, 2020, at

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/04/more-portland-area-

grocery-stores-limit-number-of-customers-reduce-store-hours-due-to-

coronavirus-crisis.html.

Calfas, J., 2020. “U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Top 110,000; New York City Begins

Reopening; Cases Surge in India,” Wall Street Journal, June 8.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



Chiglinsky, K., 2020. “Insurers Worry Virus-Linked Costs May Reach $383 Billion

a Month,” Bloomberg, March 30. Accessed April 10, 2020, at

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-30/insurers-worry-virus-

linked-costs-may-reach-383-billion-a-month.

Cohn, C., S. Barlyn and N.Z. Hussain, 2020. “Analysis: Insurers Feel Rising Legal

Heat for COVID-19 Business Interruption Exclusions,” Insurance Journal,

April 28.

Congressional Research Service, 2020. “Business Interruption Insurance and

COVID-19,” March 31.

Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB), 2020. “Commercial

Property/Casualty Market Index, Q1/2020.” Accessed May 26, 2020, at

https://www.ciab.com/download/24523.

Elassar, A., 2020. “This is Where Each State is During Its Phased Reopening,” CNN.

Accessed May 25, 2020, at https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/us/states-

reopen-coronavirus-trnd.

Federal Insurance Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2019. “Annual Report

on the Insurance Industry.” Accessed April 14, 2020, at

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/2019_FIO_Annual_Report.pdf.

Fink, S., 2020. “Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths,” The New York

Times, March 13.

Fitzpatrick, B., 2020. “Brian Fitzpatrick United States Representative (PA).”

Accessed May 30, 2020, at https://fitzpatrick.house.gov/media-center/in-the-

news/us-house-introduces-business-interruption-insurance-bills-small-

businesses.

Frier, S., and C. Cheng, 2020. “Facebook Survey Shows 31% of Small Businesses

Stopped Operating,” Bloomberg, May 18. Accessed June 2, 2020, at

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-18/facebook-survey-

shows-31-of-small-businesses-stopped-operating.

Giordano, F.J., S.P. Wright, C.J. Valente, M.R. Creta and R.E. Yammine, 2020.

“COVID-19: Congress, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and South Carolina Join

Other Jurisdictions Proposing Legislation Addressing Insurers’ Obligations to

Pay for Pandemic-Related Losses,” The National Law Review, May 6.

Grande, J., C.E. Symington, Jr., and N.F. Wienecke, 2020. “Open Letter to The

Honorable Josh Gottheimer and The Honorable Tom Reed Regarding the

Problem Solvers Caucus’ Health Crisis and Economic Revival Package.”

Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Civ.

No. 2:12-cv-04418 (D.N.J. 2014).

Hartwig, R., 2020. “The Global (Re)Insurance Industry and the Challenges of

Emerging from the COVID-19 Pandemic,” International Insurance Society

Leadership Series Webinar, June 2.

Henry, R.D., 2017. “An Analysis of Interpretation of Insurance Contracts: Common

Law Versus Strict Contra Proferentem,” Journal of Insurance Regulation,

36(1): 1–28.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Insurance Information Institute (III), 2019. “Background On: Terrorism Risk and

Insurance,” Dec. 16. Accessed April 11, 2020, at

https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-terrorism-risk-and-insurance.

Insurance Journal, 2006. “Association Files to Exclude ‘Virus or Bacteria’ Related

Diseases,” Insurance Journal, Nov. 7, 2006. Accessed April 10, 2020, at

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/11/07/74032.htm.

Insurance Journal, 2020a. “P/C Insurers Boosted Underwriting Profit, Surplus in

2019’s First 9 Months,” Jan. 20.

Insurance Journal, 2020b. “Insurers, Agents Propose Pandemic Business Relief

Plan; Plaintiffs Offer BIG Compromise,” May 22.

IRMI, 2020. “ISO Nonfiled Advisory Endorsements for Coronavirus in

Commercial Property Insurance.” Accessed April 16, 2020, at

https://www.irmi.com/whats-new/product-update/iso-nonfiled-advisory-

endorsements-for-coronavirus-in-commercial-property-insurance.

Jones, S.K., 2020. “Ohio Bill Would Expand Business Interruption Coverage

During COVID-19 Emergency,” Insurance Journal, March 30. Accessed

April 9, 2020, at

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2020/03/30/562691.htm.

Kroeger, D., and E. Park, 2020. “Applying Commercial Property Insurance to

COVID-19 Losses,” Law360, March 12. Accessed April 15, 2020, at

https://www.law360.com/articles/1252792/applying-commercial-property-

insurance-to-covid-19-losses.

Lalor, W., 2020. “COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage Concerns,” Risk

Management, March 11. Accessed April 13, 2020, at

http://www.rmmagazine.com/2020/03/11/covid-19-business-interruption-

coverage-concerns.

MetLife and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2020a. “Special Report on Coronavirus

and Small Business,” April 3. Accessed April 14, 2020, at

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/metlife_uscc_coronavirus_and

_small_business_report_april_3.pdf.

MetLife and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2020b. “Small Business Coronavirus

Impact Poll,” May 5. Accessed June 8, 2020, at

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/smallbusiness_economicimpact

_may2020_final.pdf.

Mitchell, J., 2020. “U.S. Unemployment Rate Fell to 13.3% in May,” Wall Street

Journal, June 6. Accessed June 8, 2020, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/may-

jobs-report-coronavirus-2020-11591310177.

Muccigrosso, C., 2020. “Here’s What New NC COVID-19 Restrictions Mean

for Charlotte Grocery, Retail Stores,” Charlotte Observer, April 9. Accessed

April 15, 2020, at

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article241897951.html.

NAIC, 2019. Statistical Compilation of Annual Statement Information for

Property/Casualty Insurance Companies in 2018. Accessed May 25, 2020,

at https://www.naic.org/prod_serv/STA-PS-19.pdf.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



NAIC, 2020a. “COVID-19 Property/Casualty Data Call.” Accessed May 20, 2020,

at https://content.naic.org/industry_property_casualty_data_call.htm.

NAIC, 2020b. “NAIC Statement on Congressional Action Relating to COVID-19.”

Accessed April 10, 2020, at

https://content.naic.org/article/statement_naic_statement_congressional_acti

on_relating_covid_19.htm.

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), 2020. “NAMIC

Special Report: Business Interruption, Workers’ Compensation in the States,”

April 8.

Nationwide, 2017. “Nationwide Warns of Widening Gap Between Disaster Risks

and Business Preparedness.” Accessed May 5, 2020, at

https://www.nationwide.com/personal/about-us/newsroom/press-

release?title=022817-disaster-recovery.

Nevins, J.E., and R. Lewin, 2020a. “The Constitutionality of Government Action

Mandating COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage,” Stroock & Stroock &

Lavan. Accessed April 15, 2020, at https://www.stroock.com/publication/the-

constitutionality-of-government-action-mandating-covid-19-business-

interruption-coverage.

Nevins, J.E., and R. Lewin, 2020b. “Will Business Interruption Insurance Provide

Coverage for Coronavirus?,” The CPA Journal, April. Accessed May 21, 2020,

at https://www.cpajournal.com/2020/04/29/will-business-interruption-

insurance-provide-coverage-for-coronavirus-losses.

Ortiz, J.L., and G. Hauck, 2020. “Coronavirus in the US: How All 50 States are

Responding – And Why Eight Still Refuse to Order Stay-At-Home Orders,”

USA Today, March 30. Accessed April 10 at

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/30/coronavirus-stay-

home-shelter-in-place-orders-by-state/5092413002.

Pierson, T., and K.V. Gallagher, 2020. “Proposed COVID-19 Legislation in New

Jersey,” Kennedys Law, March 19. Accessed April 14, 2020, at

https://www.kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/proposed-covid-19-

legislation-in-new-jersey.

Plitt, S., 2013. “Direct Physical Loss in All-Risk Policies: The Modern Trend Does

Not Required Specific Physical Damage, Alteration,” Claims Journal, April 15.

Accessed April 10, 2020, at https://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/idea-

exchange/2013/04/15/226666.htm.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company,

245 F. Supp. 2d 563 (D.N.J. 2001).

Robinson, L.G., 2020. “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Business Income Losses – Are

They Covered?,” IRMI, March. Accessed June 5, 2020, at

https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/coronavirus-COVID-19-

business-income-losses-are-they-covered.

Sams, J., 2020a. “Some Insurance Regulators Skeptical About Business

Interruption Claims,” Claims Journal, April 27. Accessed May 21, 2020, at

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2020/04/27/296741.htm.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Sams, J., 2020b. “Number of Federal COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits at

101 and Rising,” Claims Journal, May 21. Accessed May 21, 2020, at

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2020/05/21/297180.htm.

Schiffer, L.P., A.C. Garavaglia and K. Mihocik, 2020. “Civil Authority Orders and

COVID-19 Coverage,” The National Law Review, March 20.

Scism, L., 2020. “Politicians Push Insurers to Resolve Mounting Disputes Over

COVID-19 Losses; President Trump, Rep. Jayapal Weigh in On Growing

Debate Over Denied ‘Business Interruption’ Claims,” Wall Street Journal,

April 13.

Sclafane, S., 2020. “Lawmaker Details Federal Reinsurance for Pandemic Business

Interruption, Event Losses,” Insurance Journal, May 27.

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, 2020. “About the Victim

Compensation Fund.” Accessed April 12, 2020, at https://www.vcf.gov/about.

Shabad, R., and A. Edelman, 2020. “Trump Signs $2 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus

Bill,” NBC News, March 27. Accessed April 15, 2020, at

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gives-final-passage-2-

trillion-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-n1170281.

Simpson, A.G., 2020a. “P/C Insurers Put a Price Tag on Uncovered Coronavirus

Business Interruption Losses,” Insurance Journal, March 30.

Simpson, A.G., 2020b. “How Social Inflation May Affect Coronavirus Business

Interruption Losses,” Insurance Journal, April 2.

Simpson, A.G., 2020c. “P/C Insurance Industry Backs New Government Fund to

Help Businesses, Workers Hurt by Coronavirus Shutdowns,” Insurance

Journal, March 31. Accessed April 10, 2020, at

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/03/31/562890.htm.

Smith, C., B. Miller and P. Taylor, 2020. “Reopening the Economy Under COVID-

19: States Plat a Way Back,” Governing, March 22. Accessed May 25, 2020, at

https://www.governing.com/now/Reopening-the-Economy-Under-COVID-19-

States-Plot-a-Way-Back.html.

Snider, M., 2020. “What is Essential and Non-Essential During a Pandemic,” USA

Today, March 21.

Solomon, A., 2020. “Some Georgia Mayors Bristle Over Governor’s Decision to

Lift Restrictions Amid Pandemic,” U.S. News & World Report, May 4.

Stempel, J., 2020. “Simon Wiesenthal Center Sues Chubb to Ensure Coronavirus

Insurance Coverage,” Reuters, April 29.

Tager, E.M., E.A. White and L.R. Hamilton, 2020. “Can They Do That? Possible

Constitutional Limitations on State Efforts to Require Business-Interruption

and Loss-of-Use Carriers to Cover Small Businesses’ Losses from COVID-19,”

Mayer Brown. Accessed April 15, 2020, at

https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-

events/publications/2020/04/can-they-do-that--possible-constitutional-

limitations-on-state-efforts-to-require-business-interruption-and-loss-of-use-

carriers-to-cover-small-businesses-losses-from-covid19.

Taylor, D.B., 2020. “A Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic,” The New York

Times, April 7.

Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19



The Hartford, 2020. “COVID-19 – Business Insurance.” Accessed May 20, 2020,

at https://www.thehartford.com/coronavirus/businesses.

Travelers, 2020. “COVID-19: Business Interruption General Information –

Travelers Letter to New York Property Insurance Policyholders.” Accessed

May 21, 2020, at https://www.travelers.com/about-travelers/covid-19-

business-interruption.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2020. “Advance Monthly Sales for Retail and Food Services,

March 2020.” Accessed April 15, 2020, at

https://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/marts_current.pdf.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2020a. “What is Social

Distancing?” Accessed April 11, 2020, at

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-

distancing.html.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2020b. “How COVID-19

Spreads.” Accessed April 11, 2020, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

n"cov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-

spreads.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronav

irus%2F2019-ncov%2Fprepare%2Ftransmission.html.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, 2018. “Research

Summary – Small Business GDP, 1998–2014.” Accessed May 19, 2020, at

https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/21102039/rs444-

Small-Business-GDP-1998-20141.pdf.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, 2019. “2019 Small

Business Profile.” Accessed May 27, 2020, at

https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/21102039/rs444-

Small-Business-GDP-1998-20141.pdf.

Vazquez, M., 2020. “Trump Says Business Interruption Should Get Paid Out for

Coronavirus Interruption Claims,” CNN, April 10. Accessed April 13, 2020,

at https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-04-10-

20/h_1f905ee7677f8024ad1670db650ad595.

Weinberger, E., 2020. “D.C. Decides Against Retroactive Virus Insurance

Coverage,” Bloomberg Law, May 5. Accessed May 25, 2020, at

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/d-c-decides-against-retroactive-

virus-insurance-coverage.

White, P.S., and S.A. Breen, 2020. “Update: Louisiana Joins States Proposing

Legislation to Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19,” The National Law

Review, April 8.

Wilkinson, C., 2020a. “N.Y. Introduces Bill on Pandemic-Related Business

Interruption Claims,” Business Insurance, March 30.

Wilkinson, C., 2020b. “Buyers, Insurers Call For 9/11-Type Fund to Relieve

COVID-19 Impact,” Business Insurance, March 31.

Wilkinson, C., 2020c. “La. Lawmakers Scrap Business Interruption Bill,” Business

Insurance, May 13.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Wilson, B., 2020. “Commentary: Does Business Income Insurance Cover

Coronavirus Shutdowns?,” Insurance Journal, March 24. Accessed April 10,

2020, at

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/03/24/562144.htm.

Yang, J., 2020. “Why Many Businesses Will Be on the Hook for Coronavirus

Losses; Burned by SARS, Insurers Across the Board Now Exclude Epidemics

in Standard Business-Interruption Policies,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 21.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Guidelines for Authors

Submissions should relate to the regulation of insurance. They may include

empirical work, theory, and institutional or policy analysis. We seek papers that

advance research or analytical techniques, particularly papers that make new

research more understandable to regulators.

Submissions must be original work and not being considered for publication

elsewhere; papers from presentations should note the meeting. Discussion,

opinions, and controversial matters are welcome, provided the paper clearly

documents the sources of information and distinguishes opinions or judgment

from empirical or factual information. The paper should recognize contrary views,

rebuttals, and opposing positions.

References to published literature should be inserted into the text using the

“author, date” format. Examples are: (1) “Manders et al. (1994) have shown. . .”

and (2) “Interstate compacts have been researched extensively (Manders et al.,

1994).” Cited literature should be shown in a “References” section, containing an

alphabetical list of authors as shown below.

Cummins, J. David and Richard A. Derrig, eds., 1989. Financial Models of

Insurance Solvency, Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Manders, John M., Therese M. Vaughan and Robert H. Myers, Jr., 1994.

“Insurance Regulation in the Public Interest: Where Do We Go from Here?”

Journal of Insurance Regulation, 12: 285.

National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 1992. An Update of the NAIC

Solvency Agenda, Jan. 7, Kansas City, Mo.: NAIC.

“Spreading Disaster Risk,” 1994. Business Insurance, Feb. 28, p. 1.

Footnotes should be used to supply useful background or technical

information that might distract or disinterest the general readership of insurance

professionals. Footnotes should not simply cite published literature — use instead

the “author, date” format above.

Tables and charts should be used only if needed to directly support the thesis

of the paper. They should have descriptive titles and helpful explanatory notes

included at the foot of the exhibit.

Journal of Insurance Regulation

Papers, including exhibits and appendices, should be limited to 45 double-

spaced pages. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers anonymously; author(s) and

affiliation(s) should appear only on a separate title page. The first page should

include an abstract of no more than 200 words. Manuscripts should be sent by

email in a Microsoft Word file to:

Cassandra Cole and Kathleen McCullough

[email protected]

The first named author will receive acknowledgement of receipt and the

editor’s decision on whether the document will be accepted for further review. If

declined for review, the manuscript will be destroyed. For reviewed manuscripts,

the process will generally be completed and the first named author notified in eight

to 10 weeks of receipt.

Published papers will become the copyrighted property of the Journal of

Insurance Regulation. It is the author’s responsibility to secure permission to

reprint copyrighted material contained in the manuscript and make the proper

acknowledgement.

NAIC publications are subject to copyright protection. If you would like to

reprint an NAIC publication, please submit a request for permission via the NAIC

Web site at www.naic.org. (Click on the “Copyright & Reprint Info” link at the

bottom of the home page.) The NAIC will review your request.