- Staff
- #1
- 107
The Philadelphia Eagles' bid for reconsideration in their COVID-19 insurance case has been dismissed by a federal court, reaffirming a stringent interpretation of "physical loss or damage" under Pennsylvania law. As FM Global successfully argued, business interruption claims remain untenable without demonstrable physical alteration to property—a recurring theme across COVID-19 litigation.
This ruling echoes the precedent in *Ungarean v. CNA* and the Third Circuit's *Wilson* case. While the Eagles contended their FM Global policy was less restrictive, Judge Baylson emphasized that Pennsylvania law maintains a clear standard.
This decision reinforces the importance of precise policy language for insurers and policyholders and highlights the court's hesitancy in broadening interpretations of "physical loss."
What do you think? Is the court's strict stance fair, or should pandemic-related losses reshape future policies?
[Read the full story here]
This ruling echoes the precedent in *Ungarean v. CNA* and the Third Circuit's *Wilson* case. While the Eagles contended their FM Global policy was less restrictive, Judge Baylson emphasized that Pennsylvania law maintains a clear standard.
This decision reinforces the importance of precise policy language for insurers and policyholders and highlights the court's hesitancy in broadening interpretations of "physical loss."
What do you think? Is the court's strict stance fair, or should pandemic-related losses reshape future policies?
[Read the full story here]
Last edited: