Marot v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, under Iowa law, “there must be some physicality to the loss or damage of property—e.g., a physical alteration, physical contamination, or physical destruction”
• holding that the plain meaning of “physical loss” does not encompass pandemic-related closures but instead requires tangible alteration to property
• holding that policy covering direct “accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage” did not cover oral surgeons’ “partial loss of use of its offices” due to “due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government-imposed restrictions.”
• holding that policy covering direct “accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage” did not cover oral surgeons’ “partial loss of use of its offices . . . due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government-imposed restrictions.”
• holding that policy covering direct “accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage” did not cover oral surgeons’ “partial loss of use of its offices . . . due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government-imposed restrictions.”
• determining that losses due to government-imposed restrictions related to COVID-19 do not constitute direct physical loss or damage to property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).