The court granted the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings, in part, but left the door open for the insured to pursue claims under two provisions in the policy. Monarch Casino & Resort v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179812 (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2021).     Monarch owned a casinos in Reno, Nevada and Black Hawk, Colorado. Monarch submitted a claim to its insurer, Affiliated, for business interruption losses due to COVID-19. Monarch alleged that it incurred business interruption losses of between $7,500,000 and $12,500,000 a month due to COVID-19 and the attendant executive orders directing the closure of the two casinos.     The policy included two communicable disease coverage provisions. The Commnicable Disease-Property Damage exemption from the communicable disease exclusion provided that if access to a described location with the presence of a communicable disease was limited by a government order, the policy would cover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the insured for the cleanup, removal, and disposal of such presence of communicable disease from the insured property. The Communicable Disease-Business Interruption exemption covered the business interruption loss incurred during the period in which the property was not accessible due to government orders issued as a result of the presence of communicable disease.     The dispute was not whether these exemptions applied to  Monarch's claims, but whether the exemptions rendered the Contamination Exclusion unenforceable as a whole. Monarch argued that the policy could not exclude coverage for viruses while also including coverage for communicable diseases.      The court found that the Communicable Disease exemptions were not irreconcilable with the Contamination Exclusion. The exemptions did not conflict with the exclusions; they simply carved out narrow circumstances where coverage was permitted. While Monarch could be entitled to limited coverage under the Communicable Disease exemptions, Monarch's request for coverage for the full amount of the losses in incurred was barred by the Contamination Exclusion.      It was also possible that Monarch was entitled to Professional Fees Coverage, which covered the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the insured of certain professionals engaged to determine the amount of loss payable under the policy. Affiliated offered no argument for why it was entitled to judgment on the pleadings for claims based on this provision. It was therefore not entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to claims based on this provision.     Monarch's remaining claims under the various business interruption provisions were precluded. Affiliated's motion for judgmenon the pleadings was granted in part. 

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/2ZhJCn1