Recent Pro-Insurer Developments Concerning COVID-19 Coverage Exposures
Insights for Insurers Alert | 2 min read
May 27, 2020
As COVID-19 coverage lawsuits continue to be filed across the country, there have been some significant pro-insurer developments over the past few weeks that are worth noting.
The Louisiana State Senate has shelved the portion of Senate Bill No. 477 that would have mandated retroactive and prospective coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A revised version of bill, which requires policies providing business interruption coverage to contain a notice of all exclusions in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of insurance, is headed to the Louisiana House of Representatives.
On the litigation front, on May 14, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an emergency application made by an insured restaurant, asking the court to assume extraordinary jurisdiction over its business interruption coverage suit on the basis of immediate public importance. The petition also sought to establish a coordinated system to resolve all similar business interruption cases in the state.
Additionally, on May 20, Magna Legal Services—which provides legal support services including discovery, jury consulting, and court reporting—voluntarily dismissed its COVID-19 coverage lawsuit against its insurer and its broker. According to Law360, a Magna representative stated that Magna "decided it was not the best course of action for us to take at this time," noting that Magna "has been a trusted partner of the insurance industry for 13 years." The suit had been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on May 13.
On May 22, Social Life Magazine filed a notice of dismissal of its business interruption coverage suit, which had been filed in New York federal court on April 29. The magazine had sought an injunction requiring the insurer to immediately pay its claim. During a telephonic show-cause hearing on May 14, Judge Caproni denied the insured's emergency application and stated:
I feel bad for your client. I feel bad for every small business that is having difficulties during this period of time. But New York law is clear that this kind of business interruption needs some damage to the property to prohibit you from going. You get an A for effort, you get a gold star for creativity, but this is not what's covered under these insurance policies.
A copy of the hearing transcript can be viewed here. The insured's May 21 letter to Judge Caproni, in which the insured stated its belief that "a written order relating to the preliminary injunction hearing on May 14, 2020 is not required," is also available to read.
The COVID-19 coverage wars have just begun, but insurers have scored some early victories. We will continue to monitor developments.
Related People
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”


