Skip to main content
· 4/2/2024

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.

Syllabus

The plaintiff, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, owns and operates, inter alia, a casino and resort complex. The defendant insurance company issued the plaintiff an all risk insurance policy, which covered the plain- tiff's listed properties against all risks of physical loss or damage and for business interruptions up to $1,655,000,000 per occurrence. These coverages were triggered by physical loss or damage to covered prop- erty; that threshold language was not defined in the policy. The policy also included coverage for certain specified events, including for a response to a communicable disease and communicable disease busi- ness interruption loss. The policy contained an exclusion to covered costs for contamination due to a virus. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff claimed that it suffered, inter alia, physical loss and damage to its locations and properties in excess of $76 million. Upon the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the defendant was required to provide coverage for the losses that the plaintiff sustained as a result of its suspension of business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claimed that the presence of COVID-19 fell within several of the provisions within the policy and that the policy's exclusion for contamination by a virus did not apply. The plaintiff maintained that the virus could be spread in many ways, could remain viable for many days on objects, surfaces, and materials, and that physical alterations of its property as a result of the presence of COVID-19 rendered the property nonfunctional, unsafe, and unusable. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that it suffered business interruption losses due to the presence of COVID-19, as the plaintiff's businesses were required to shut down or limit their operations pursuant to orders from tribal and state govern- ments and to mitigate its losses. The defendant filed a motion to strike

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that shift change or job transfer may be reasonable accommodation “particularly when such changes do not reduce pay or cause loss of benefits”
  • noting that the plaintiff had requested injunctive relief
  • police officer’s religious beliefs opposing abortion entitled him to reasonable accommodation under Title VII to be excused from assignment guarding health clinic where abortions were performed
  • \[I]t is a reasonable accommodation to permit an employee to exercise the right to seek job transfers or shift changes . . . .\
  • “The determination of whether an accommodation is reasonable in a particular case must be made in the context of the unique facts and circumstances of that case.”
  • “[I]t is a reasonable accommodation to permit an employee to exercise the right to seek job transfers or shift changes, particularly when such changes do not reduce pay or cause loss of benefits.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bright; Alvord; Pellegrino

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.