Insights
Publications

COVID-19 Exposure and GL Coverage: Issues for Personal Injury Claims

April 27, 2020 Blog

Though much of the conversation regarding insurance coverage for COVID-19-related losses has focused on the potential for business interruption-type coverage (see prior discussion here), insureds should not overlook the potential that COVID risks trigger other types of coverage. For example, as previously discussed here, some insureds may seek coverage under D&O policies should they face securities and derivative-type claims.

In addition to the forms of coverage we’ve previously blogged about, businesses who have continued operations during the pandemic as well as those considering whether, when, and how to reopen their businesses in the coming weeks and months should consider whether they will be able to access coverage under their GL policies for some COVID-related claims. For example, companies that continue or restart operations in some form during the pandemic may anticipate claims from individuals who allegedly contracted the virus while interacting with that company’s employees or independent contractors. While those claims will likely face significant causation issues (will plaintiffs be able to substantiate transmission from a particular source though some combination of location tracking data and genetic testing of the virus?), these kinds of claims can be costly to defend and may create significant risks for certain businesses.

The good news is that claims by infected individuals may be covered under standard GL policies that insure against “bodily injury” arising from an “occurrence” – an individual who becomes ill as a result of exposure to the virus suffers “bodily injury,” and the nature of virus’ spread makes it likely that from the standpoint of the insured any transmission was the result of an accident. (There may also be an argument that there has been “property damage” where viral particles contaminate a property and prevent a company from continuing to use the space.)

Insurers may resist accepting coverage, but many of the issues they might raise can be overcome.

No Occurrence Arguments: CGL policies’ insuring agreements commonly require an “occurrence”, which is usually defined as being “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Insurers may argue that there has been no accident and that as a result there is no coverage, even if there is alleged bodily injury (or property damage). Insurers may be more inclined to raise this argument where (1) viral spread has increased significantly such that a substantial portion of the relevant population is suspected to be a carrier and/or (2) the claimant asserts that the virus was transmitted by an employee/independent contractor who showed visible symptoms (or who is known to have contracted coronavirus). Courts have addressed similar “no occurrence” arguments in a number of contexts and reached varying results. See, e.g., Campanella v. Northern Properties Group, LLC, 2020 WL 979888 (D. Minn., Feb. 28, 2020) (rejecting insurer’s argument that there was no “occurrence” where a property owner allowed a toxic build-up of chicken feces at its building, noting that “[the insurer] cannot point to any facts suggesting that any party foresaw [the reporter] contracting [a disease transmitted through spores in chicken feces.]”). In short, the more likely transmission by a particular individual becomes, the greater the risk that an insurer will argue that there was no identifiable “accident” that would trigger coverage.

These kinds of “no occurrence” arguments tend to overlook the likelihood that plaintiffs will include negligence-type claims – either for negligent supervision, or negligent failure to train on proper safety procedures, or negligence in failing to provide appropriate protective materials like masks and hand sanitizer – in those suits. Where plaintiffs include such claims (or include allegations sufficient to support such claims), insureds will likely be able to argue that cases like Liberty Surplus Ins. Co. v. Ledesma & Meyer Const. Co., 5 Cal.5th 216 (2018) require the insurers to at least provide a defense. Ledesma stands for the proposition that tort theories like negligent supervision or negligent hiring can constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of GL policies, at least under California law. (State-specific legal issues as well as state- or locality-specific infection information will play an important role in the coverage analysis in these kinds of cases.)

Other Exclusions: Insurers may also argue that various types of exclusions bar coverage. Some of the most commonly-cited will likely be:

  • Mold/Fungus/Bacteria Exclusion. While some versions of this exclusion do reference “infectious agents” or “communicable diseases,” many do not. Insureds should be mindful that a virus is not a bacterium. Viruses are also not “alive.” Whether this exclusion applies will depend on the particular language in the insured’s policy.
  • Auto Exclusions. Particularly with respect to delivery services, insurers may cite various forms of the auto exclusion to argue that the bodily injury arises out of the use (or entrustment to others) of a vehicle owned by an insured. Whether transmission of a disease “arises out of” the use of a car or delivery truck is debatable, but it is worth noting that some versions of this exclusion are written to bar even negligent-supervision-type claims.
  • Violation of Law Exclusions. Some policies will include exclusions barring coverage for injury caused by or arising from an act that violates any statute, ordinance or regulation of any federal, state or local government. While the language of these exclusions is often restricted to violations of certain kinds of laws (e.g., antitrust laws, or consumer protection laws, or laws related to the publication of information), some are written broadly. It is possible that insurers will cite these exclusions where shelter-in-place orders are in place while arguing that the activity at issue was “non-essential” and thus in violation of the order. As with the above exclusions, whether the exclusion applies to violations of orders will require a case-by-case analysis.
  • Employer’s Liability. GL policies will not cover claims by an employee alleging they contracted the virus during the course of their employment. They also typically exclude coverage for claims by the relatives of that employee resulting from claims that the employee was injured on the job. These types of claims are usually routed through and handled by the workers’ compensation insurance system.

In sum, GL policies may provide coverage for certain personal-injury type claims arising from COVID-19 exposures, and insureds should consider all of their policies when reviewing claims related to COVID-19.

Firm Highlights

News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

BIPA Liability: Existing CGL Coverage May Provide a Lifeline for Policyholders

Developments in the law have increased the potential liability that companies could face under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), but fortunately for policyholders, Illinois case law has also solidified coverage for BIPA...

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
Publication

When Can an Insurer Pursue a Malpractice Claim Against Defense Counsel Retained for an Insured? (Part One)

By Jalen M. Brown, Kristin Davis, Shanti Eagle, PeterJ. Georgiton, and John Mark Hart When an insurer accepts an insured’s tender and agrees to provide a defense, it is often an afterthought as to whether...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
Publication

Regulatory Changes Underway To Address Dwindling California Property Insurance Market

We keep hearing about how difficult it is for our clients to get property insurance these days, both for homes and businesses in Northern California’s wildfire-prone areas. Which, of course, is most of Northern...

Read More
Publication

When Can an Insurer Pursue a Malpractice Claim Against Defense Counsel Retained for an Insured? (Part Two)

By Jalen M. Brown, Kristin Davis, Shanti Eagle, Peter J. Georgiton, and J. Mark Hart Part 1 of our two-part article addressed the circumstances in which an insurer can directly pursue malpractice claims against...

Read More
News

Who’s Who Legal 2023 Recognizes Farella Lawyers

Six Farella Braun + Martel lawyers have been recommended by Who’s Who Legal 2023 as leading practitioners in their fields. Who’s Who Legal – Environment 2023 James Colopy Robert Hines David Lazerwitz Chris Locke...

Read More