Monday Restaurants v. Intrepid Insurance Company, No. 21-2462 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs’ sought coverage for losses and expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court granted the insurers’ motion to dismiss.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting Defendant summary judgment. The court held that the primary rule for contract interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the parties' intent. In cases where the insurance policy language is unambiguous, the court will enforce the contract as written and will give each term its ordinary meaning. Here, the contract at issue provides coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to property.” Neither business alleges COVID-19 was physically present on its premises or that anything physical happened to its properties. The parties’ dispute regarding whether the policies’ Virus Exclusion applies is irrelevant because the Plaintiffs’ failed to show any direct physical loss of or damage to their property.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Diversity - Insurance. Two restaurants and a pediatric dental practice sought coverage for loss of business income and extra expenses, incurred during the COVID pandemic. The district court's grant of summary judgment to insurers is affirmed. Coverage required direct physical loss of or damage to property, and COVID was not physically present and nothing physical happened to the property. There is no distinction between "loss of" and "damage to" property, as ultimately, the trigger has to be a physical loss.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.