This week, two critical matters came under the deliberation of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: the issue of insurance coverage for COVID business losses and the constitutionality of Guam’s in-person informed consent requirement for abortion.
At the center of the first issue was a claim by The Oregon Clinic against the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., alleging the company improperly denied coverage for business losses sustained as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court, however, upheld the dismissal of the clinic’s claims.
This ruling feeds into the broader, ongoing debate on whether conventional business interruption insurance policies should extend to pandemic-induced closures or losses. Businesses across the country, experiencing massive disruptions due to the pandemic, have pursued insurance claims to cover these unexpected events, often finding themselves in complex legal battles with their insurers.
The second issue of Guam’s in-person consent requirement for abortion provoked a substantial constitutional controversy. Guam’s law mandates individual, face-to-face advice before a woman may give her consent to an abortion, testifying the importance and complexity of informed consent and its role in preserving patient autonomy.
However, such requirements in the time of COVID-19 raise several critical questions. Does the obligation for in-person advice place an undue burden on women seeking abortions, particularly considering additional pandemic precautions? These and other questions formed the crux of the constitutional examination faced by the court this week.
These discussions, housed within Morrison & Foerster LLP’s Left Coast Appeals, further underline the far-reaching impact of the pandemic, not merely on public health and economies but also on legal boundaries.
For more detailed insights read the full court deliberations and summaries on JD Supra.