The U.K.High Court last week involving business-interruption claims against policies issued by eight insurers.Jason Schupp of the says the ruling is a “mixed bag” for U.K.

insurers and policyholders and has little relevance for their U.S.counterparts.In the U.K.

case, Schupp writes, “the fundamental theme running through the insurers’ defense was that the policies only covered localized outbreaks, not global pandemics.” “More to the point for U.S.property/casualty insurers,” says , a professor of insurance law at Quinnipiac University School of Law and a Triple-I non-resident scholar, the U.K.case involved disease coverage – “an affirmative coverage not included in most U.S.

commercial property policies.”  U.S.business interruption disputes so far have turned on two key policy features: “The U.K.court did not address either the question of property damage or the applicability of a virus exclusion,” Schupp writes.

As Menapace put it in a about U.S.business-interruption cases, “Policy language controls whether COVID-19 interruptions are covered….The threshold issue [for U.S.

insurers] will be whether the insureds can prove their business losses are caused by ‘physical damage to property’.”