The insurer's motion to dismiss a nationwide class action suit arising from shutdown orders after the COVID-19 pandemic was rejected by the court. Back2health Chiropractic Ctr. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42791 (D. N.J. March 15, 2021).      Back2health sought coverage under its all-risk policy after stay-at-home and business restrictions were implemented. The complaint alleged the policy covered some of Back2health's financial losses. The insurer denied the claim due to lack of physical damage to Back2health's property. Back2health filed suit individually and on behalf of a nationwide class consisting of policy holders who's coverage had been denied by Sentinel.     Sentinel first moved to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12 (b) (2), Fed. R. Civ. P. Sentinel argued there was no specific jurisdiction for claims of nonresident class members with no adequate link to New Jersey. The court rejected this argument because, at this early stage of the litigation, it needed to only be satisfied that it had personal jurisdiction over Sentinel for the claims advanced by Back2health, the only named plaintiff.      Sentinel next argued there was a lack of standing and the case should be dismissed under Rule 12 (b) (1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Sentinel conceded that Back2health had standing as to a New Jersey class. But Sentinel argued Back2health did not have standing as to putative out-of-state plaintiffs. The court disagreed. Article III standing was a constitutional requirement that directly impacted a court's subject-matter jurisdiction. In assessing Article III, a court had to assure itself of a party's standing. Third Circuit precedent did not raise concerns about a named plaintiff's standing to assert claims for putative out-of-state members. Sentinel's motion to dismiss for lack of standing was denied.     

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/2Rn4g0J