Fifth Avenue Ass'n v. Lindsay

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that losses incurred by men’s clothing store owners by closure orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic did not amount to “direct physical loss of or damage to property”
• holding that the civil authority provision did not “provide coverage because the civil authority orders were issued to mitigate the spread of COVID- 19, not ‘as a direct result of’ a covered cause of loss to nearby property”
• distinguishing insured’s reliance on drywall cases because property did not need to be removed or replaced and COVID-19 did not make the stores inherently dangerous or uninhabitable like the emission of sulfur gas from drywall
• “[T]he Louisiana Supreme Court would interpret ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property’ to cover only tangible alterations of, injuries to, and deprivations of property.”
• Although the “Louisiana Supreme Court has not opined on this language,” the court concluded that “[it] would interpret ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property’ to cover only tangible alterations of, injuries to, and deprivations of property.”
• “The Louisiana Supreme Court has not opined on [the meaning of “direct physical loss or damage to property”], but other courts have interpreted similar language. And we find these other courts’ analyses persuasive here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).