"A plain reading of the policy provides that the parties intended to exclude coverage for COVID-19 related losses like the losses plaintiff allegedly suffered in the immediate case," the court said.
"The majority's failure to recognize this ambiguity will result in a financial burden on insureds of limited economic means," Justice Jorge Labarga wrote.
An Arizona Court of Appeals concluded the Arizona Constitution never contemplated mental injuries when it used the term 'injury,' and the state's high court agreed.
"In order to hold in the manner in which you're arguing we would have to read 'purchase' to mean any change in coverage," said Justice Christine Donohue, who sits on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court bench.