Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

The North Carolina business court recently handed a win to policyholders in a COVID-19 business interruption lawsuit arising from the pandemic-related closure of Tanger outlet centers across the country. Tanger Props. Ltd. P’ship v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2025 NCBC 66 (Oct. 27, 2025). Tanger’s insurers moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the insurance policies are governed by Georgia law, not North Carolina law, where the Supreme Court has held that all-risk policies must cover loss resulting from COVID-19 interruptions. Unpersuaded by the insurers, the court denied the motion finding that Tanger established a sufficiently close connection to North Carolina law.

Theft in the cargo industry has skyrocketed in recent years. In the first half of 2024, cargo thefts rose 49 percent and the average loss per shipment by 83 percent. Given these dramatic spikes in cargo theft, policyholders whose operations rely on the safe transportation and trade of cargo should take steps to mitigate against the potential losses of a cargo-theft event. We discuss below the insurance coverage options available to policyholders that can help protect against the risks and losses associated with cargo-related theft if such a loss occurs.

On December 13, 2024, the North Carolina Supreme Court refused to follow the herd of poorly and in many cases, erroneously-reasoned decisions and applied settled rules of insurance policy interpretation to find Cincinnati Insurance Company owes coverage to a group of restaurants suffering business interruption losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.  While the North Carolina Court’s decision in North State Deli, LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., may come too late for many, the decision nevertheless offers reassurance that some courts remain willing to stand firm on fundamental guiding principles.

A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner.

On December 1, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court held that the concurrent cause doctrine applies where multiple perils combined to create a loss even where one of those perils is excluded by the terms of the all-risk property insurance policy. The decision is a significant victory for Florida policyholders, especially where other jurisdictions have struggled to apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine after natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. For detailed analysis of the Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc. decision, see Andrea DeField’s client alert

The World Health Organization (WHO) has called Zika an international public health emergency. The insurance industry is taking notice. Civil authorities have already begun to issue notices, like the Center for Disease Control’s travel notices for areas in which Zika transmission is occurring. As highlighted by Marsh in a recent blog post, the potential for action by civil authorities can create problems for some policyholders.¹