COVID-19, Business Interruption Claim Triggered Under Civil Authority Provision

    The California Court of Appeal found that the insured alleged facts sufficient to trigger coverage under a civil authority endorsement after government shutdown orders due to COVID-19 caused the insured to close its business. Butter Nails & Waxing v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5264 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022).

    The insured was a salon which was forced to close its doors after the local government issued public health order requiring businesses to cease in-person activities to protect against the spread of COVID-19. The insured filed a claim for business losses under a policy issued by Lloyd’s. The claim was denied and the insured filed suit. The trial court entered judgment against the insured after sustaining Lloyd’s demurrer.

    On appeal, the insured argued that the policy’s civil authority endorsement covered its business losses because the public health orders required evacuation of the property. Lloyd’s contended there was no coverage because the orders did not require evacuation. Further, Lloyd’s argued a mold exclusion was applicable. 

    On appeal, the court noted that the insured did not seek coverage under any provision that required any type of property loss or damage. The Civil Authority Endorsement provided the policy would pay for business loss “caused by interruption of business due to Civil Authority Action that requires evacuation of the described premises.” The court found that the term “evacuation” was broad enough to encompass the public health orders that required the insured’s non-essential business, providing in-person service, to close its doors in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. 

    The court next found that the mold exclusion did not apply. Although the exclusion included the term “virus” in the list of “organic pathogens” that were not covered, this did not make the mold exclusion applicable to every claim stemming directly or indirectly from a virus. The exclusion was meant to exclude coverage for losses stemming from the presence of mold, mildew, or organic pathogens on the business  premises and not anything beyond that. 

    The judgment sustaining Lloyd’s demurrer was reversed.