Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

June 01, 2020 | Blog Post| 13 Ways That COVID-19 Will Change the Insurance Industry

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Some people will have permanent complications from the Coronavirus1, which will create a new population with pre-existing conditions. This may result in either more “eggshell Plaintiffs” or in an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition in an MVA.
 
As there is mass unemployment and furloughing, individuals are cutting back on expenses, including either canceling their automobile insurance policies or reducing their automobile insurance coverage. This will result in an increase in UM/UIM claims or the insurance companies will be obligated to pay less on claims due to individuals having less coverage. However, fewer people will carry UM coverage as UM coverage cannot be bought without buying BI coverage.

HEALTH INSURANCE    

Family First Coronavirus Response Act mandates coverage for COVID-19 diagnostic testing without mentioning covering treatment for COVID-19 while Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act provides funding for COVID-10 treatment for the uninsured.

  • Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Pub. L. No. 116-127) (Mar. 18, 2020) requires coverage of “in vitro diagnostic products,” including those at visits at health care providers’ offices, urgent cares, and emergency rooms, with no cost-sharing, pre-authorizations or other medical management requirements. Treatment for COVID-19 is not included in this Act. Additional funding is also authorized, including $1,000,000 for the Public Health and Social Service Emergency Fund to reimburse health care providers for COVID-19 diagnostic testing of uninsured individuals.
  • Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act ”) (Pub. L. No. 116-136) (March 27, 2020) provides $100 billion for treatment and testing for the uninsureds that will be reimbursed at Medicare rates. The Provider Relief Fund apportioned $50 billion for general distribution to Medicare facilities and providers affected by COVID-19 based upon their net patient revenue. The other $50 billion has been apportioned to providers who are located in areas particularly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak or in rural areas and providers who serve low-income or uninsured Americans.2 
As unemployment rates rise, more Americans will lose their employer sponsored health insurance. Some of the major health insurance companies have agreed to waive their insureds’ cost-sharing payments for COVID-19 treatment.
COVID-19 claims are increasing, but claims for non-urgent conditions could decrease as individuals may avoid visiting medical facilities or physician offices to reduce exposure to COVID-19.3
Although insurers cannot impose cost sharing, preauthorization, or other medical management measures for COVID-19 testing and some insurers have agreed to waive insureds’ out-of-pocket costs for COVID-19 treatment, it is unknown what impact insurers incurring substantial unexpected costs and employees being laid off will have on next year’s health insurance premiums.4  Typically, the insurer determines the premium based upon prior expenses incurred by the pool of people it insured and premiums increase when the medical costs increase.  

LOSS OF USE/BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE

There will be an increase in loss of business income claims as a result of state mandatory shutdown orders.5  Insurers have asserted that business interruption policies do not cover communicable diseases, like COVID-19, and were never intended to do so.6
Some states are beginning to require that property insurance policies cover business interruptions as a result of COVID-19 claims in order to indemnify insureds for their associated losses.7  Other states are declining to require that property insurance carriers cover business interruption claims associated with COVID-19.8   In addition, some states are considering mandating business interruption coverage.9

EMPLOYMENT-RELATED INSURANCE CLAIMS

Unemployment insurance applications are drastically increasing. For the period ending May 9, 2020 , the Labor Department reported that over 36.5 million Americans applied for benefits, which is the worst jobless rate since the Great Depression of the 1930s.10  States are adopting bills that provide coronavirus-related unemployment insurance.11
There may be an increase in the number of workers who refuse to return to work due to COVID-19 related concerns, such as a “sick building.” Failure to return to work when offered to do so can result in a denial or termination of unemployment benefits. Some states have incorporated exceptions similar to those contained in the CARES Act. Pursuant to U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance, general fear of COVID-19 is not sufficient grounds for declining to return to work and unemployment benefits will be terminated.12
COVID-19 claims for healthcare workers and first responders who must be quarantined or who contract COVID-19 at work may be covered under Workers Compensation even though diseases arising out of employment are usually not covered.13

TRAVEL INSURANCE

As travel insurance policies typically exclude epidemics and pandemics, changes in plans or cancellations due to COVID-19 are unlikely to be covered under a travel insurance policy as COVID-19 is now a known event.14

GENERAL CHANGES IN INSURANCE OVERALL

The insurance industry will change. Policies that include verbiage clearly covering coronavirus may be revised to carve out this coverage as it has been a significant expense to everyone. Policies that are silent on coronavirus-like issues may be clarified as to what is covered. Insurance companies may either completely carve out coronavirus-like issues or make coverage an add-on. As Terrorism Risk Insurance was developed after 9/11 and was designed so that a share of the costs would be covered by the government when losses reached a specified threshold, a similar pandemic risk insurance may develop relating to COVID-19 and/or virus risks.15

Amanda Mezer | ASSOCIATE

Casualty Defense Litigation and Extra-Contractual

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA


1 Although researchers do not know all of the possible permanent complications from COVID-19, researchers have documented lung problems, kidney failure, liver problems, cytokine storms, headaches, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome/sensory neuropathy. https://www.medlink.com/page/neurological_complications_of_coronavirus_infections_knowns_unknowns_and_wh

2 https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/cares-act-provider-relief-fund/index.html

3 COVID-19 AFFECTING PAYERS CLAIMS: Other Claims Shifting, 33 HEALTH CARE COLLECTOR 1 (2020).

4 Id.

5 Suits have been filed in Florida (Class Action Complaint, Cafe Int’l Holding Co. LLC v. Chubb Ltd. et al., No. 1:20-CV-21641-MGC (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020) (claiming that “all-risk” insurance policies containing coverage for  business interruption that does not exclude viruses, “Extra Expense,” “Extended Business Income,” and “Civil Authority” cover claims for direct physical loss and damage to their properties that suspended business operations,  which resulted in loss of business income));  Illinois (Complaint at Law, Billy Goat Tavern I Inc. et al. v. Society Ins., No. 1:20-CV-2068 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2020) (claiming that “all-risk” insurance policies’ definitions and coverage for “direct physical loss”  include “direct physical loss” resulting from state mandatory shutdown orders)); Massachusetts (Complaint, Legal Sea Foods LLC v. Strathmore Ins. Co., No. 1:20-CV-10850 (D. Mass. May 4, 2020) (claiming that their newly obtained “all-risk” insurance policy, which contained no virus or pandemic exclusion even though COVID-19 had already had impacts to businesses in other countries, covered the losses incurred when the restaurant was mandated to close despite the insurer stating that the “ordinance of law” exclusion prohibited coverage where a law regulating use of property is enforced)); and Texas (Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Request for Disclosure, Boutros v. Sentinel Ins. Co., No. 2020-20934 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty. Apr. 2, 2020) (claiming that business insurance policies that cover loss of business income and loss incurred as a result of a civil authority order provide coverage for losses based upon mandatory postponement of non-urgent medical procedures and surgeries)).

6 Insurance: “Pandemic Outbreaks Are Uninsured Because They Are Uninsurable” – Business Interruption Coverage Exclusion, 53 MORTGAGE & REAL EST. EXECUTIVES REP. NL 1 (2020) [hereinafter, Pandemic Outbreaks].

7 COVID-19 update: FEMA to fund National Guard virus response; EPA issues flushing guidelines, WESTLAW HEALTH DAILY BRIEFING, Apr. 1, 2020, 2020 WL 1541381 [hereinafter, FEMA] (explaining that New York has a proposed bill requiring that property insurance insurer cover business interruptions associated with COVID-19 losses).

8 Washington, D.C. has declined to mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related claims. D.C. counsel removes proposed COVID-19 business interruption coverage, CQ ROLL CALL INS. BRIEFING, May 6, 2020, 2020 WL 2179725.

9 States considering mandating business interruption coverage include Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Id. Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey and New York have introduced legislation mandating coverage of business interruption losses resulting from COVID-19. Pandemic Outbreaks, supra note 6.

10 https://news.yahoo.com/3-million-unemployment-claims-filed-123312806.html.

11 FEMA, supra note 7.

12 States Warn Workers That Unemployment Benefits Could Be Denied for Refusing to Return to Work (Update #1), RIA PAYROLL UPDATE, May 12, 2020, 2020 WL 2394574.

13 Resource Desk, 43 QUINLAN, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION L. BULL. NL 8 (2020).

14 NAIC advises on travel insurance coverage related to COVID-19, CQ ROLL CALL INS. BRIEFING, Mar. 11, 2020, 2020 WL 1163363.

15 Waters: House Financial Services to propose pandemic reinsurance program, CQ ROLL CALL INS. BRIEFING, Mar. 19, 2020, 2020 WL 1301427.

June 25, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips | Little Black Box

Join us for this week's Thursday Tip as attorney Paola Solano discusses the use of ECMs in Third-Party vehicle claims.

Read More »
June 19, 2020 Blog PostIs Amazon a Seller? An Issue Primed for State Courts

The tide is turning as another federal court declares that Amazon is responsible for third-party products purchased on its website. On January 7, 2020, the Southern District of Texas in McMillian v. Amazon.com joined the Third Circuit court of Appeals and the Western District of Wisconsin in finding that Amazon can be a “seller” under the applicable state product liability statutes.

Read More »
May 13, 2020 Blog PostIt's a Policy, Not a Payday Loan: The Voluntary Payments Provision Deconstructed

From time to time, the issue of whether an insurer has a duty to reimburse a payment made by an insured without the permission of the insurer is analyzed by a court.  A standard ISO form in a Commercial General Liability policy contains the following, or similar provision...

Read More »
May 06, 2020 Blog PostMembers Only: The Eleventh Circuit Restricts Membership to the "Illusory Coverage" Club to Narrow Set of Circumstances

The Doctrine of Illusory Coverage is a common law doctrine that Florida courts have confirmed is a part of Florida’s insurance law. See e.g., Zucker for BankUnited Financial Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., 856 F.3d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017)...

Read More »
April 02, 2020 Blog PostDuke v. Hoch Standard Survives Challenge in Eleventh Circuit

In a recent decision, QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., Nos. 18-13926 and 19-13894, 2020 WL 1228648 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insured failed to carry the burden of proving allocation of damages between covered and uncovered claims...

Read More »
February 28, 2020 Blog PostInformation or Indemnity: Do Certificates of Insurance Grant Insured Status?

Often, a person or entity that is attempting to claim additional insured status under the insurance policy of another will rely on a “Certificate of Insurance” that was issued by the named insured’s agent...

Read More »
February 26, 2019 Blog PostTHE MARKOVITS DECISION: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of a proposal for settlement, the complaint is considered served on the insurer when process is served upon the statutory agent, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, and not when process is forwarded by the Chief Financial Officer to the insurer.  Markovits v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) rehr’g denied (Feb. 5, 2018).

Read More »
December 14, 2018 Blog PostDrone Accident Excluded Under CGL Policy's Aircraft Exclusion

In the most recent edition of our book, Butler on Drones, we reported that ISO has issued specific exclusions for unmanned aircraft for inclusion into CGL policies, but it was an open question whether a CGL policy’s standard aircraft exclusion already excluded coverage for liability arising from the use of a drone. A California federal district court has now weighed in on the question – the first to do so, as far as we are aware. And we like the answer.

Read More »
October 10, 2018 Blog PostRecent Federal Court Decision May Alter the Reservation of Rights Landscape in South Carolina

Only 15 months ago, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court fundamentally changed the reservation of rights landscape in South Carolina. Since Harleysville, two questions have remained: When must an insurer issue a reservation of rights letter to avoid waiving its rights, and what level of explanation is sufficient to avoid waiver?

Read More »
September 19, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence: Civil Authority and Ingress/Egress Coverage

The hurricane may trigger civil authority or ingress/egress coverage for businesses that are not directly damaged but lose income because they cannot access their operations for a period of time due to a governmental evacuation order.

Read More »
September 10, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence is aiming for the Carolinas

Once Hurricane Florence passes through the region, insurance professionals can expect a deluge of claims activity. While both North Carolina and South Carolina have felt the effects of recent Hurricanes Irene and Matthew, for example, many insurance professionals have limited familiarity with the particularized coverage issues which may arise in both states. Navigating the laws of both states, which can be both parallel and disparate, is going to be important in Florence’s aftermath.    

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 09, 2017 Blog PostTO FEE OR NOT TO FEE, THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY IN MACEDO II

Due to its holding in Macedo II, the Florida Supreme Court created a situation where, arguably, many auto policies now provide coverage for attorney’s fees and expenses awarded against an insured following an adverse verdict triggering the penalties under a proposal for settlement.

Read More »
August 08, 2017 Blog PostHoly Harleysville! – The Rules Governing RORs, Intervention, and More in South Carolina Have Just Changed

For insurers, litigating third party coverage disputes in South Carolina has always proved formidable.  Insurers can be liable for “bad faith” even if there is no coverage; they may be required to pay an insured’s attorney’s fees if the insurer commences a coverage action against its insured and loses ; and extra-contractual claims may proceed simultaneously with a breach of contract claim.

Read More »
July 25, 2017 Blog PostThat Sinking Feeling: Sinkholes, Florida Law, and Some Questions Raised by The Recent Collapse in Land O' Lakes

The recent catastrophic ground cover collapse in Land O’Lakes attributed to a sinkhole highlights the unique aspects of Florida geology and the impact it can have on the risks faced by building owners and their insurers. In central and western Florida, the land generally consists of a layer of limestone topped by layers of clays and sands. The limestone is a vestige of the shells and skeletons of marine life deposited during prehistoric periods when that layer was at the bottom of shallow seas. Over time, limestone was formed and covered by layers of silts and sands. The limestone is slowly dissolved by groundwater, and constitutes part of the aquifer.

Read More »
March 07, 2017 Blog PostFederal Diversity Jurisdiction: Proving Citizenship of Limited Liability Companies

Jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case. Jurisdiction matters at the outset of a lawsuit. It matters during discovery. It even matters after summary judgment. Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Read More »
February 16, 2017 Blog PostSurplus Insurers, Too, Can Rely on the Application to Interpret Policy

Section 627.419 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor or any rider or endorsement thereto.”  This statute has not applied to surplus lines insurers since the “Zota-fix” legislation of 2009, which generally exempted surplus lines insurers from Chapter 627.

Read More »
September 08, 2015 Blog PostNJ: Insurers Still On The Hook To Pay Innocent Parties Under Fraudulent Policies

The decision offers further guidance in the somewhat inconsistent world of rescission and automobile policy statutes, which – when accounting for the application misrepresentation, policy, and statutes – can be a tricky process.

Read More »
April 08, 2015 Blog PostFourth Circuit Sets Stage For Interpreting Contingent Business Interruption

CBI insurance provides coverage for loss of sales or revenue sustained when business is interrupted due to property damage that occurs away from the insured premises and, consequently, disrupts the flow of goods and services from/to a supplier or customer (referred to as the “dependent” or “contributing” properties). There are a limited number of cases discussing issues relating to CBI insurance; and the Fourth Circuit’s ruling provides greater clarity as to what constitutes a “direct” supplier, which is a common...

Read More »
April 06, 2015 Blog PostIt's a "Storm Surge" -- not a "Flood"!

Both parties cited to the SEACOR Holdings, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2011) case. The SEACOR case held that flood limits did not apply to Hurricane Katrina-generated water damage. In the SEACOR policy, there were definitions for flood, windstorm and named windstorm. The definition of windstorm and named windstorm did not include the phrase “storm surge,” but the definition of flood included wind-driven water. The SEACOR court held that all damage caused by Katrina was the result of a named windstorm...

Read More »
September 26, 2014 Blog PostWhen It Comes to Sinkholes, Contracts, Statutes and Regulations Do Matter

On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Shelton v. Liberty Mutual, Case number 13-15371 / D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-02064-JSM-AEP. This decision confirms that the statutory definitions for structural damage under the May 17, 2011 amendments to the Florida sinkhole statutes apply to property policies issued after those amendments were enacted. The court’s order reversed the positions taken by the District Court that seemed bent on plotting a new course for Florida jurisprudence.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostThe Emperor's New Property Damage?

For many years, Florida courts appeared to say that general liability insurance policies did not cover a subcontractor’s faulty work that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. That all changed with the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in United States Fire Insurance Company v. J.S.U.B., Inc., in 2007. In J.S.U.B. the court found that present GL policies covered the faulty work of a subcontractor that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. The reasoning used by the J.S.U.B. court to reach that conclusion would seem to also apply to claims for property damage to a subcontractor’s work that resulted from the subcontractor’s faulty work. However, courts applying Florida law have not yet found this to be so, and in fact say just the opposite.

Read More »

Key Points