Santo’s Italian Cafe v. Acuity

Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Case Number: 21-3068

In its brief, UP combats Acuity’s argument that in order to trigger coverage, there must be a “tangible alteration” of the business. UP does not share that view and urges the court to broaden the meaning of physical loss to include damage that renders property unsafe or unusable, even without visible, tangible, or structural damage. UP argues the following four points:

I. Decades of case law warned insurers that this language is broad and not limited to tangible harms.

II. The better-reasoned Covid-19 cases follow the pre-pandemic consensus.

III. Mastellone and Universal Image are not persuasive.

IV. The Court should remand for discovery on whether regulatory estoppel bars Acuity from enforcing the virus exclusion.

This brief was authored pro bono by George M. Plews, Gregory M. Gotwald, Christopher E. Kozak of Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP and John Ellison and Richard P. Lewis of Reed Smith LLP

 


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 www.uphelp.org. United Policyholders does not sell insurance or certify, endorse or warrant any of the insurance products, vendors, or professionals identified on our website.

Source: https://uphelp.org/amicus-briefs/santos-italian-cafe-v-acuity/
Date: June 20, 2021