EAST ST. LOUIS – Belleville’s 4202 Main Street Brewing Company sued Cincinnati Insurance in U.S. district court on Aug. 21, claiming it unreasonably refused to cover losses from the lockdown.
Ted Gianaris of Simmons Hanly Conroy alleged a massive statewide fraud in which policies lacked virus exclusions but Cincinnati summarily denied coverage.
“Defendant omitted to inform plaintiff that it would refuse to cover loss caused by statewide civil authority orders that applied to plaintiff’s business and premises,” Gianaris wrote.
He wrote that the restaurant’s policy covered losses caused by viruses and losses caused by civil authority shutdowns.
He inserted a policy clause that Cincinnati would pay for loss of income due to necessary suspension caused by direct physical loss to property, a clause that would pay for extra expense in a period of restoration to avoid or minimize suspension of business, and a clause that Cincinnati would pay for loss of income and extra expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the premises due to direct physical loss to property.
According to the complaint, the restaurant submitted a claim shortly after Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued his initial executive order.
On March 30, Cincinnati responded by informing the restaurant it would investigate the claim under a full reservation of rights.
Cincinnati asked for inspection and test reports relating to actual or suspected presence of the virus at the premises, and asked why the restaurant believed there was direct physical loss or damage to premises or to property at other premises.
Gianaris wrote that on May 22, the restaurant sent Cincinnati a letter claiming all available coverage.
Cincinnati sent a denial letter on May 29.
“Although your client closed their business in response to a governmental order, there is no evidence that the order was entered because of direct damage to property at other locations or dangerous physical conditions at other locations,” the letter stated, according to the complaint.
“Moreover the order does not restrict access to the area immediately surrounding your premises.
“Because these requisite elements of the civil authority coverage are not present here, coverage is unavailable under the policy.”