Amicus Library

In its brief, UP tackles the topic of COVID-19. In the argument’s summary, UP states that the district court erred in holding “direct physical loss of or damage to” has only one meaning–“tangible injury to property”– because in doing so the district court: (1) ignored the plain language and context of the policies; (2) inserted a judicially created exclusion into the policies (the Mama Jo’s cleaning exclusion) in contravention of relevant Florida precedent considering this issue; and (3) disregarded the rights of the parties to contract. A finding that “direct physical loss of” property does not require “structural alteration” of property is further consistent with the majority of cases considering this issue, pre-COVID-19.