Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

June 26, 2020

COVID-19 Business Interruption: Early Win for Insurer in NY Federal Court

The landscape of business-interruption claims litigation continues to develop. While the number of pending claims continues to rise, a recent, preliminary decision from a NY federal court was decided in favor of an insurance company and against an insured who sought compensation for a business-interruption loss.

In Social Life Magazine, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company Limited, an insured brought suit in federal court (the Southern District of New York), seeking coverage for nearly $200,000 after the monthly magazine publication company suspended operations pursuant to Governor Cuomo’s executive order requiring a 100-percent reduction in nonessential workforce.

Although the insured argued its business required specialized equipment that was industrial in nature and, thus, could not have been accomplished remotely, the insurance company denied the business-interruption claim, reasoning COVID-19 did not cause any direct physical loss or damage to the company’s property. The insured primarily pointed to the policy’s coverage for losses caused by mold and spores and lack of any concomitant exclusion for losses occasioned by virus infestation, arguing COVID-19 is a biological contaminant with a specific life cycle that includes replication and, thus, should be covered under the policy.

The insurer rebutted that the circumstances at hand were distinguishable because New York’s case law requires actual physical loss or damage at the insured premises and not simply a loss of accessibility. To this end, the insurer argued the loss they claimed was occasioned by executive orders from Governor Cuomo that were motivated by the imperative to limit community spread during the COVID-19 pandemic—not physical damage.

Although the case involved a preliminary motion for temporary relief and the court has not issued a final decision regarding the merits of the insured’s claim, at oral argument on the motion, the court ultimately denied the insured’s requested relief. The court agreed with the insurer that no direct physical loss or damage results where property remains accessible and people can occupy the premises. The court further agreed with the insurer that any losses were the result of civil orders of authority. In concluding the hearing, the court sympathized with the sentiments shared by both small and large business owners who were forced to close as a result of the pandemic. The insured’s motion for temporary relief was denied, but they will have the opportunity to seek the full relief requested in the lawsuit.

As insureds and insurers alike navigate the early stages of COVID-19 litigation, the court’s decision in Social Life Magazine, Inc. may be a sign that insureds could face an uphill battle in overcoming the threshold “physical loss or damage” inquiry. That said, some policyholders are arguing that other policy forms and endorsements (which are not triggered by the “direct physical loss” requirement) compel a finding of coverage.

Barclay Damon’s Insurance Coverage Practice Area attorneys will continue to monitor COVID-19 insurance litigation and provide updates in future alerts.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Steven Mach, associate, at or another member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage & Regulation Practice Area.

We also have a specific team of Barclay Damon attorneys who are actively working on assessing regulatory, legislative, and other governmental updates related to COVID-19 and who are prepared to assist clients. Please contact Yvonne Hennessey, COVID-19 Response Team leader, at or any member of the COVID-19 Response Team at


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Competello, Fernandez, Liz, Riley, and Trippett—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked


Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Claim Based on Material Misrepresentations in Insurance Application


It's Not Over Yet. Turning Your Judgments Into Dollars.

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out