The New Jersey Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a COVID-related business interruption dispute between Atlantic City’s AC Ocean Walk casino and its insurers. The crux of this dispute revolves around whether the COVID-19 virus or related executive orders caused covered “direct physical loss of or damage” to the plaintiff’s property, and if so, if the contamination exclusions in the policies are applicable. The justices recognized the unique nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, an event not foreseeable at the time of the policy signing. However, they posed questions about whether the casino, as a “sophisticated” policyholder, should have been aware of the policy’s potential applicability or lack thereof in the event of a viral outbreak.
Steven M. Orlofsky, partner with Blank Rome and attorney for the plaintiff, emphasized in his argument the difference in interpretations of the policy. He articulates his clients’ standpoint, “The defendants have what I call the ‘scoreboard,’ approach. They have cited many state and federal cases from around the country which have decided these questions against policyholders.”
The nuances of this case add to an ongoing global debate over virus-related business interruption insurance claims in the midst of a pandemic. For more on this ongoing case, access the original Law Journal report here.