Procaccianti Co. Ins. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.

Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Case Number: 1:20-cv-00512-WES-PAS

In its brief, UP refutes Zurich’s position that “the headings in the Policy should be used to defines the scope of coverage.” UP’s position is that this notion upends the long-established principles of insurance policy interpretation. Policy language must be given it plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. With that, the removal of certain terms by the insurer in the plain language of the policy does not allow for headings to circumvent its meaning, especially in the form of policy exclusions.

UP points out that an exclusion limited to a “virus” does not unambiguously exclude coverage for a pandemic. This is underlined by the fact the insurance industry itself recognized that ambiguity and drafted an exclusion to address. UP ask the Court to consider these arguments when ruling on the motion to dismiss.

This brief was authored pro bono by Matthew T. Oliverio of Oliverio & Maracaccio LLP, and Joseph D. Jean and Alexander Hardiman of Pilsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pitman LLC


The information presented in this publication is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue or problem, United Policyholders recommends that you consult with an attorney. Guidance on hiring professional help can be found in the “Find Help” section of United Policyholders does not sell insurance or certify, endorse or warrant any of the insurance products, vendors, or professionals identified on our website.

Date: July 24, 2024