NO COVERAGE FOR COVID-19 LOSSES = NO BAD FAITH IN DENYING COVERAGE (Philadelphia Federal)
On March 30, 2021, Eastern District Judges Beetlestone and Baylson independently issued opinions finding no insurance coverage due for business losses resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. In both cases, plaintiffs not only demanded coverage, but asserted bad faith claims against their insurers.
Motions to dismiss were granted in both cases, with prejudice, the courts finding no coverage due for the types of losses claimed. We leave you to read these cases in detail on the issues of physical loss or damage, direct loss or damage, governmental closures, business losses, and the other issues now regularly before the courts on Covid-19 business interruption and government closure claims.
Neither court gave any lengthy address to the bad faith claims, or even an express analysis for their dismissal. By comparison, the breach of contract and declaratory relief claims over coverage were addressed in detail.
The first element of any bad faith claim is that the claim denial is unreasonable. In dismissing the bad faith claims, with prejudice, it seems fair to infer that because the coverage denial was correct under the policy language, these courts found no bad faith possible, i.e., where the coverage denial is correct under the relevant policy language, it is impossible to prove the carrier acted unreasonably, thus precluding a finding of bad faith.