A place setting, as for dining, is depicted with medical gloves and masks integrated into it. U.S. District Judge Dan A. Polster of the Northern District of Ohio initially sided with the plaintiffs, concluding that under Ohio law, Zurich’s policy was “ambiguous” and “susceptible of more than one interpretation,” the opinion said. (Credit: Renars 2013/Shutterstock)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has sided with an insurance company after they denied an insured’s COVID-19 business interruption claim. This verdict comes as the wait continues for a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court as to what “direct physical loss of or damage to property” means in regard to these cases.

In the present case, the plaintiffs own and operate restaurants in Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. All filed claims with Zurich American Insurance Co. to recover lost business income they attributed to government orders restricting in-person dining in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, according to the circuit court’s opinion filed June 13.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free
PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader.


  • All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.

Already have an account?

Dig Deeper



Join PropertyCasualty360

Don’t miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed decisions for your P&C insurance business. Join PropertyCasualty360.com now!

  • Unlimited access to PropertyCasualty360.com - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including BenefitsPRO.com, ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
  • Exclusive discounts on PropertyCasualty360, National Underwriter, Claims and ALM events

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join PropertyCasualty360

Copyright © 2022 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.