The court denied the insurer's motion to strike class action allegations in the insureds' complaint seeking to establish business interruption claims under the insurer's policy. Legacy Gymnastics, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108242 (W.D. Mo. June 9, 2021).      In its putative class action, Legacy alleged that Arch denied Legacy's claim for coverage stemming from damage incurred due to COVID-19. Legacy temporarily closed its facility due to the pandemic. While Legacy had reopened, it continued to suffer lost revenues and increased costs. Legacy's claim that the restriction on use of its property constituted direct physical loss of or damage to property was denied by Arch. Legacy filed suit on its behalf and similarly situated insureds under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. Legacy's complaint sought to represent a class of all businesses that were covered as of March 2020 by one of Arch's policies that contained business interruption provisions.      After Legacy amended its complaint, Arch sought to strike the class action allegations. Legacy contended the arguments opposing class certification were premature and asked the court to deny the motion so that discovery could proceed.     Arch first argued that applying multiple states' laws rendered a class action unmanageable because state courts disagreed whether COVID-19 caused direct physical loss or damage to property. The court, however, could not discern from the pleadings in which states other potential class members were located, and whether there were material differences in the laws of those states. The court found it was appropriate to allow Legacy to engage in discovery to determine whether the Rule 23 (b) requirements could be satisfied.     Arch also argued that because Legacy's policy covered only personal property, the claims were not typical of class members who purchased policies that insured premises, buildings, or structures and that had a claim for direct physical loss or damage to that property. Again, the court found Arch's typicality arguments were premature.      

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/37Bj40W