Hunton Insurance Team Alerts California Supreme Court to “Physical Alteration” Fallacy
Time 2 Minute Read

On February 6, 2023, The Claims Journal highlighted a letter by members of Hunton’s insurance team, submitted on behalf of United Policyholders, to the California Supreme Court, which alerts the Court to the fundamental infirmities in the “standard” expounded by the insurance industry in COVID-19 business interruption litigations nationwide. The letter was issued to assist the Court in addressing a question certified from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Co, asking whether the actual or potential presence of the COVID-19 virus on an insured’s premises “constitute direct physical loss or damage to property” for purposes of coverage under a commercial property insurance policy.

The letter analyzes the fundamental errors that combine to support the so-called “standard” espoused by the authors of Couch on Insurance Third, which has often been accepted blindly by courts in COVID-19 insurance disputes. The letter is premised on a well-reasoned article co-authored by Hunton insurance partner Lorie Masters, titled Couch’s “Physical Alteration” Fallacy: Its Origins and Consequences, in which the authors trace the origin of the Couch Third “standard” and demonstrate its infirmity. Despite the authors’ invitation to open up their viewpoint to debate in an effort to simply ensure that courts get the law right, no well-reasoned merits-based response has been offered in over a year since the article was first published. “That silence speaks for itself.”

Click here for more.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

North Carolina has once again favored policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A recent decision from the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham Wood Fired Pizza Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., reinforces the North State Deli decision and suggests that a failure to provide coverage for COVID-19 business interruption claims may constitute bad faith.

Time 2 Minute Read

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by insurers seeking to challenge denial of their partial summary judgment motion on the issue of whether Covid-19 may cause “direct physical loss, damage or destruction” of property under an all-risk insurance policy that includes affirmative coverage for loss caused by infectious disease.

Time 4 Minute Read

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently handed policyholders an important win in Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., reversing a trial court ruling that had capped coverage under a communicable disease endorsement at the $1 million per occurrence limit. Relying on the express language of the communicable disease coverage at issue, the appellate court held that government shutdown orders—not the COVID-19 pandemic itself—constituted the operative “occurrences” under Life Time’s policy. By interpreting the cause of loss in this way, the court expanded Life Time’s recovery from a single $1 million limit to 29 separate limits, one for each jurisdiction that independently ordered closure of Life Time’s business locations.

Time 4 Minute Read

In the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (No. 24-1432), decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 25, 2025, the court addressed whether an employer had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate an employee who refused to provide medical documentation supporting her request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page