CHESTER C. CHIANESE, DDS, LLC v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, No. 3:2020cv05702 - Document 29 (D.N.J. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER granting Defendant's 22 Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff's 19 Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice; The Clerk is directed to close this case ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 3/27/2021. (abr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CHESTER C. CHIANESE, DDS, LLC v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Doc. 29 Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 2393 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2394 Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 2395 Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 2396 Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 2397 Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 2398 Case 3:20-cv-05702-MAS-ZNQ Document 29 Filed 03/27/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 2399 2021 WL 567994, at *7. The Court. therefore, grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint..i Accordingly, ..,; __ IT IS on thise, ; day of March 2021. ORDERED that: I. Defendanfs Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. MICHAEL A. SHIPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .i Having found that the Virus Exclusion bars coverage, the Court declines to discuss Plaintiffs argument that Plaintiff is entitled to coverage because it suffered direct physical loss of or damage to the insured property. (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 7-18.) ··[T)his argument puts the cart before the horse. Whether [p}laintiff suffered ·physical loss or damage· is a secondary inquiry. The primary inquiry is whether the alleged physical loss or damage was caused by a virus." Bo,(v Pltvsics v. Nationwide Ins., No. 20-9231, 2021 WL 912815. *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 10, 2021 ). In reaching its decision, the Court also rejects Plaintiffs regulatory estoppel argument and declines to provide a lengthy discussion. As with the Virus Exclusion, courts have consistently rejected virtually identical arguments. See Del. Valley Plumbing Supp(v. 2021 WL 567994. at *5-6 (collecting cases). 7
]]>
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.
