The Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted the insured's motion for summary judgment, denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment and and set the COVID-19, business interruption case for trial on damages. McKinley Dev. Leasing Co. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2021 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 885 (Ohio Ct. Pleas Nov. 14, 2021).      McKinley owned several commercial properties and had multiple leases with small and larger businesses. When the governor and Department of Health ordered shutdowns at the beginning of the pandemic, tenants could not pay rent, causing substantial business income losses to McKinley. McKinely filed a claim under its property policy with Westfield and coverage was denied. McKinley sued for breach of contract and bad faith.     The court previously denied Westfield's motion to dismiss. Subsequently, McKinley filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the court's earlier ruling that the policy language was ambiguous. Westfield filed a cross-motion requesting the court to review the caselaw across the country and reverse its prior ruling finding the policy to be ambiguous.      The court found it "astounding" that the Westfield policy did not define the critical policy terms, "direct," "physical," "loss" or "damage." It was hard to believe that Westfield would not find it important for the insured to understand when purchasing the lengthy policy and making premium payments. Policyholders had the right to have a clear understanding of what they received in return. Given the spectrum of accepted interpretations for these terms in other decisions, the court interpreted the disputed language in Westfield's policy in favor of McKinley.      Westfield next relied upon the policy's virus exclusion which barred coverage for "loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium, or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease." Again, the court agreed with McKinley that the exclusion was reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.      Westfield also raised Civil Authority Coverage. Under this provision, Westfield agreed to pay for loss of income caused when covered causes of loss caused damage to other properties within one mile of McKinley's properties and resulted in an order by civil authority that prohibited access to McKinley's properties. Here, it was clear that the pandemic had caused damage to properties surrounding McKinley's properties, resulting in dangerous physical conditions for which Ohio Civil Authority orders were issued, preventing access to McKinley's properties. As a result, the language in the policy was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation and did not preclude coverage.      Finally, the court granted Westfield's motion on the bad faith and punitive damages claims. There was sufficient case law to support Westfield's reasonable justification for denying coverage.      The court set a trial date for damages.       

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/3eQgSGj