Portland Chef Naomi Pomeroy Sues Insurer for Denying Coverage of Losses During the Pandemic

Williamette Week ^ | May 13, 2020 | Tess Riski

[EBH]

Exactly, the loss had to from physical loss of the property or damage to the property.

Was there damage to the property, no.

Did she have a physical loss to said property...maybe. Her business was ordered closed through no fault of her own and she essentially had physical loss to said property. She no longer had control to the property to conduct business.

A lot of business insurance companies dodged this pandemic stuff under that clause. We’ll have to wait and see if the courts read the clause the way she is. Her loss of control to the said property?

[circlecity]

Calling that a physical “loss” of the property is a stretch that wouldn’t hold up. She didn’t lose any property. He use of the property was restricted by governmental order and nobody agreed to insure her for that at the premium she agreed to pay.

[Don W]

So loss of product due to it aging out because of compulsory closing is not covered?
Thanks, Mr. Insurance Adjuster. I like you even less now.

I LOATHE insurance weasels. Of any stripe.