Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Only Courts Can Decide if COVID-19 Chaos is Included Under Business Interruption Coverage

Client Alert

Despite paying insurance premiums for years, businesses are now being told by insurance companies and brokers that the business interruption coverage in their policy does not apply to coronavirus losses. However, the question of whether business interruption coverage extends to losses caused by the current pandemic will ultimately be answered by the courts, not insurance carriers. These legal decisions will depend upon the specific language of the policy and the facts and circumstances surrounding the claim. For more information on the specific issues regarding business interruption coverage claims, please see the prior guidance provided by BMD here.

Lawsuits are being filed in Ohio and many other states to challenge coverage denials based on coronavirus losses. Insurance companies will vigorously defend these claims at all stages, including at the pre-suit claim level. Currently, insurance carriers are  requiring businesses to submit substantial documentation after a proof of loss has been submitted. Intentional or not,  requiring businesses to submit substantial documentation, including proof that the coronavirus was present at their location, will likely dissuade a number of businesses from asserting claims and lessen the number of lawsuits challenging coverage denials.

While there are legislative efforts to provide business interruption coverage to small businesses in Ohio and other states, the legislative process will take time, and the outcome is uncertain.

In the interim, what should be businesses being doing to preserve their rights to pursue relief under their insurance policies? Business should:

  1. Request copies of all insurance policies from brokers or directly from insurers. While business interruption coverage concerns the property coverage included in almost all commercial policies, other coverages may exist and apply, depending upon the industry.

  2. Gather documentation to support any coronavirus insurance claims that the business intends to assert. The type and nature of documentation will largely depend upon the business involved. For example, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, salons, and fitness centers in Ohio should obtain a copy of the pertinent order shutting down their establishments. Businesses should also gather all financial documentation demonstrating losses from the shutdown or earlier, depending upon the circumstances.

  3. Consider filing a proof of claim to preserve the rights of the business under the insurance policy. While this can be done independently, many businesses would benefit from discussing this option or obtaining assistance from insurance brokers or legal counsel to submit a proof of loss or claim in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy.

  4. Consult with legal counsel about insurance policies and whether coverage may exist for coronavirus losses. Not all policies include the same language or exclusions. Furthermore, this issue is developing based on the arguments and opinions adopted by Courts in Ohio and other states. It will be important to discuss with counsel how to substantiate a claim and the options for pursuing claims in Court. Finally, given the multitude of legal issues presented by the novel coronavirus, businesses should also discuss their current policies and potential insurance needs.

Businesses should not be discouraged by the multitude of articles disseminated by the insurance industry over the last month to dissuade businesses from filing coronavirus claims. Insurance coverage is always dependent upon the language of the policy and the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims as presented. The courts, not the insurance industry, decide whether coverage exists. For this reason, it is important to be proactive now to preserve your rights and know your options.

For more information, please contact Kyle A. Johnson at kajohnson@bmdllc.com or 330.374.7475 or Hal DeSaussure at hdesaussure@bmdllc.com or 330.436.8914.


Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.