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.


Board of Pharmacy Rule Changes

Board of Pharmacy made changes to rules effective on March 4, 2024

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.

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

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.