`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`
`
`LINDENWOOD FEMALE COLLEGE
`d/b/a LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY,
`individually and on behalf of all
`
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-CV-01503-HEA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LINDENWOOD’S OPPOSITION TO ZURICH’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 2 of 39 PageID #: 1681
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LINDENWOOD’S ALLEGATIONS ........................................ 2
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`Lindenwood Has Plausibly Alleged that the Policy’s Coverage Is Triggered for Its
`COVID Losses. ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. The Policy’s “Contamination” Exclusion, as Zurich Modified It by Policy
`
`Endorsement, Dictates that “Virus” Is a Covered Cause of Loss ....................................... 3
`
`1. Zurich Seeks to Upend Long-Established Rules of Insurance Policy Interpretation ....... 5
`
`2. The Contamination Exclusion Does Not Apply to “Loss”. ........................................... 12
`
`B. Lindenwood Sufficiently Alleges that Its COVID Losses Are Attributable to Direct
`
`Physical Loss of or Damage to Property. .......................................................................... 13
`
`1. The First Amended Complaint Plausibly Alleges Direct Physical Damage
`
`to Property ...................................................................................................................... 14
`
`2. The First Amended Complaint Plausibly Alleges” Direct Physical Loss of”
`
`Property .......................................................................................................................... 18
`
`3. Zurich’s Case Law Is Inapposite and Unpersuasive ...................................................... 23
`
`4. “Direct Physical Loss of or Damage to” Property Is at Least Ambiguous .................... 26
`
`5. The Policy Does Not Broadly Exclude Coverage for “Loss of Use”............................. 27
`
`C. The First Amended Complaint Also States a Claim for Relief under the Policy’s
`
`“Civil or Military Authority” Coverage ............................................................................ 29
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 3 of 39 PageID #: 1682
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blount,
`491 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Jackson,
`476 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 2, 17
`
`Assurance Co. of Am. v. BBB Serv. Co.,
`265 Ga. App. 35 (2004) ............................................................................................................. 29
`
`Ballas Nails & Spa, LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.,
`No. 4:20 CV 1155 CDP, 2021 WL 37984 (E.D. Mo. Jan, 5, 2021) ....................... 24, 25, 28, 29
`
`BBMS, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co.,
`No. 20-0353-CV-W-BP, 2020 WL 7260035 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2020) .......................... 25, 28
`
`Beaufort Rentals LLC v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.,
`No. 9:18-cv-02658-DCN, 2018 WL 6248770 (D.S.C. Nov. 29, 2018) .................................. 6, 7
`
`Blue Springs Dental Care, LLC et al. v. Owners Ins. Co.,
`488 F. Supp. 3d 867 (W.D. Mo. 2020)................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Burns v. Smith,
`303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. 2010) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Columbiaknit, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.,
`No. Civ. 98–434–HU, 1999 WL 619100 (D. Or. Aug. 4, 1999)............................................... 17
`
`Council Plaza Redev. Corp. v. Duffey,
`439 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. banc 1969) ............................................................................................. 14
`
`Craven et al. v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co.,
`Case No. 20CY-CV06381, 2021 WL 1115247 (Mo. Cir. Ct. March 9, 2021) ................... 16, 19
`
`Derek Scott Williams PLLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
`No. 20 C 2806, 2021 WL 767617 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2021) ............................................... 20, 22
`
`Dibben v. Shelter Ins. Co.,
`261 S.W.3d 553 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 4 of 39 PageID #: 1683
`
`Dodson Int’l Parts, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.,
`332 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) ............................................................................. 13, 27
`
`Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins.,
`531 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. banc 2017) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co.,
`719 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Dundee Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marifjeren,
`587 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1998) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`No. 2:20-CV-265, 2020 WL 7249624 (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 2020) ............................................... 19
`
`Gallagher v. City of Clayton,
`699 F. 3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.,
`No. 2:12-CV-04418 WHW, 2014 WL 6675934 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2014) ................................. 17
`
`Harrison v. Tomes,
`956 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. 1997) ...................................................................................................... 27
`
`Henderson Road Restaurant Systems, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company,
`No. 1:20-cv-01239-DAP, 2021 WL 168422 (N.D. Jan. 19, 2021) ..................................... 28, 30
`
`In re Society Ins. Co. COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Ins. Litig.,
` MDL No. 2964, 2021 WL 679109 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2021) .................................. 20, 21, 22, 26
`
`Am. Int’l Spec. Lines Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Case. Ins. Co.,
`142 Cal. App. 4th 1342 (Cal. App. 2006) ................................................................................. 12
`
`John Akridge Co. v. Travelers Cos.,
`837 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1993) ......................................................................................... 7, 10, 11
`
`Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.,
`287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) ....................................................................................... 13, 16
`
`K.C. Hopps v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
`Case No. 20-cv-00437-SRB, 2020 WL 6483108 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020) .......................... 18
`
`Kamp v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`No. 3:12-CV-904-JFA, 2013 WL 310357 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2013) ............................................ 12
`
`Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co.,
`827 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1992) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 5 of 39 PageID #: 1684
`
`Macheca Transp. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.,
`649 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`Manner v. Schiermeier,
`393 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. 2013) ........................................................................................................ 27
`
`MDL Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.,
`274 F. App’x 169 (3d Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`Mehl v. The Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.,
`Case No. 16-CV-1325-CDP, 2018 WL 11301983 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2018) ............................ 19
`
`Menard v. Gibson Applied Tech. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`No. 16-498, 2017 WL 6610466 (E.D. La. Dec. 27, 2017) ........................................................ 12
`
`Miami-Luken, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co.,
`No. 1:16-cv-876, 2018 WL 3424448 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2018) ................................................ 6
`
`Motorists Mutual Ins. v. Hardinger,
`131 F.App’x 823 (3d Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 25
`
`Murray v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
`509 S.E.2d 1 (W.Va. 1998) ................................................................................................. 23, 25
`
`Narricot Indus., Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,
`No. 01-4679, 2002 WL 31247972 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2002) ............................................. 29, 30
`
`Neco, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co.,
`Case No. 20-CV-04211-SRB, 2021 WL 601501 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 16, 2021) ..................... 18, 19
`
`Security Storage Properties v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
`No. 09-1036-WEB-DWB, 2010 WL 1936127 (D. Kan. May 12, 2010) .................................... 8
`
`Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass’n v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,
`No. 1:15-CV-01932-CL, 2016 WL 3267247 (D. Or. June 7, 2016) ......................................... 17
`
`Peters v. Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co.,
`835 S.W.2d 300 (Mo. 1993) ...................................................................................................... 11
`
`Pine Bluff Sch. Dist. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co.,
`984 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.,
`311 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................... 18, 21, 25
`
`Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lillard-Roberts,
`No. CV-01-1362-ST, 2002 WL 31495830 (D. Or. June 18, 2002) .......................................... 21
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 6 of 39 PageID #: 1685
`
`Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
`307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) ........................................................................... 11, 14, 19, 29
`
`Robert E. Levy, D.M.D., LLC v. Hartford Financial Services Group,
`No. 4:20-cv-00643-SRC, 2021 WL 598818 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 16, 2021) .................................... 25
`
`Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am.,
`808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. 1991) ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`Seifert v. IMT Ins. Co.,
`No. CV 20-1102 (JRT/DTS), 2020 WL 6120002 (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2020) ............................ 17
`
`Southern Dental Birmingham LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company,
`Case No. 20-cv-681-AMM, 2021 WL 1217327 (S.D. Ala. March 19, 2021) .......................... 20
`
`Southlanes Bowl, Inc. v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Ins. Co.,
`46 Mich. App. 758 (1973) ......................................................................................................... 29
`
`State v. Graham,
`149 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) .................................................................................... 13
`
`Studio 417 v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
`478 F. Supp. 3d 794 (W.D. Mo. 2020)............................................................................... passim
`
`Sylvester & Sylvester, Inc. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. 2020-cv-00817, 2021 WL 137006 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 7, 2021) .................................. 6
`
`Thor Equities, LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.,
`20 Civ. 3380, 2021 WL 1226983 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2021) ................................................. 12
`
`Tomars v. United Fin. Cas. Co.,
`No. 12-CV-2162 (JNE/HB), 2015 WL 3772024 (D. Minn. June 17, 2015) ............................. 12
`
`TRAVCO Ins. Co. v. Ward,
`715 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2010) ........................................................................................ 23
`
`Ungarean, DMD v. CNA,
`No. GD-20-006544, 2021 WL 1164836 (Allegheny Cnty. Ct., March 22, 2021) ............. passim
`
`Universal Sav. Bank v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co.,
`No. B159239, 2004 WL 515952 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2004)............................................... 23
`
`Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins. Co.,
`963 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 5, 27
`
`W. Fire Ins. Co. v. First Presbyterian Church,
`437 P.2d 52 (Colo. 1968) .................................................................................................... 21, 23
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 7 of 39 PageID #: 1686
`
`Welch Foods, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,
`659 F.3d 191 (1st Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Zwillo V, Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co.,
`No. 4:20-00339-CV-RK, 2020 WL 7137110 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2020) ............................ 25, 26
`
`Statutes
`
`La. Stat. § 22:885(B) ..................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`16 Williston on Contracts § 49:15 (4th ed.) .................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 8 of 39 PageID #: 1687
`
`At bottom, Zurich’s motion to dismiss presents two pivotal questions:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Has Lindenwood plausibly alleged a reasonable interpretation of its “All Risks”
`property insurance Policy demonstrating that coverage exists for economic losses
`caused by one or more of the following alleged Covered Causes of Loss: (a) the actual
`presence of the Coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease on Lindenwood’s property and
`the surrounding property of others; (b) the continuous imminent threat and inherent risk
`of exposure from the Coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease to Lindenwood’s
`property and the surrounding property of others; (c) the ongoing COVID-19 global
`pandemic; and/or (d) orders issued by national, state and local governments and
`agencies in response thereto?
`
`2. Has Zurich proven that the Policy’s exclusion for “Contamination” clearly and
`unambiguously eliminates any possibility of coverage for Lindenwood’s claims?
`
`With respect to the first question, Lindenwood has certainly alleged that its economic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`losses fall within the scope of Zurich’s contractual promise to pay for any loss attributable to
`
`“direct physical loss of or damage to” property – an entirely undefined phrase in the Policy. This
`
`Court can dispose of Zurich’s motion by simply applying the general consensus that has emerged
`
`in decisions reached under Missouri law (which the parties agree controls): that a policyholder
`
`adequately states a covered claim to recover economic losses by alleging a loss of use of its insured
`
`property caused by the actual presence of the Coronavirus on its property. At this juncture, the
`
`Court need delve no further into Lindenwood’s claim because it has plainly stated a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted for Zurich’s breach of contract.
`
`With respect to the second question, Zurich cannot meet its heavy burden to prove that the
`
`Policy’s “Contamination” exclusion clearly and unambiguously eliminates any possibility of
`
`coverage for Lindenwood’s claim. Application of Missouri’s rules for interpreting insurance
`
`contracts compels the conclusion that Zurich’s “Contamination” exclusion does not even include
`
`“virus” as an excluded cause of loss. Of particular importance here, Zurich’s decision to alter this
`
`Policy’s “Contamination” exclusion through an endorsement that expressly removes “virus” from
`
`its exclusionary scope demonstrates the reasonableness of interpreting this “All Risks” Policy to
`
`include “virus” (i.e., the Coronavirus) as a Covered Cause of Loss.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 9 of 39 PageID #: 1688
`
`Thus, this Court should deny Zurich’s motion to dismiss.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`
`
`“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
`
`accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`662, 678 (2009). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court takes the plaintiff’s
`
`allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and assesses whether the
`
`plaintiff has asserted a claim that has facial plausibility. See, e.g., Gallagher v. City of Clayton,
`
`699 F. 3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2012). No heightened pleading standard applies to an insurance
`
`coverage dispute, whether it be in the context of a COVID-19 coverage claim or otherwise.
`
`
`SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LINDENWOOD’S ALLEGATIONS
`
`Lindenwood’s First Amended Complaint (FAC (Doc. 33)) spans 43 pages and includes
`
`155 separately numbered paragraphs; filed with it is a copy of the Policy (Doc. 33-1). Lindenwood
`
`made all the necessary factual allegations – which must be accepted as true – to state a claim for
`
`breach of contract against Zurich. Specifically, Lindenwood alleges (1) the existence of
`
`Lindenwood’s insurance contract with Zurich (including identification of the Policy’s relevant
`
`provisions); (2) that it suffered economic losses covered under the Policy because they are
`
`attributable to “direct physical loss of or damage” to property; and (3) that it submitted a claim to
`
`Zurich for coverage under the Policy, which Zurich wrongfully denied. For the convenience of the
`
`Court, Lindenwood has filed as Exhibit 1 to the declaration filed contemporaneously herewith a
`
`statement summarizing the allegations in its operative First Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`I.
`
`LINDENWOOD HAS PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED THAT THE POLICY’S
`COVERAGE IS TRIGGERED FOR ITS COVID LOSSES.
`
`The Policy here “insures against direct physical loss of or damage caused by a Covered
`
`Cause of Loss to Covered Property.” (Policy § 1.01). The Policy defines a Covered Cause of Loss
`
`as: “All risks of direct physical loss of or damage from any cause unless excluded.” (Policy § 7.11)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 10 of 39 PageID #: 1689
`
`Lindenwood alleges in its First Amended Complaint that it sustained economic losses
`
`(including lost revenues and added expenses) as a result of the Coronavirus, the disease it causes
`
`(COVID-19) and the physical loss of and damage to property that they cause, and the
`
`accompanying governmental closure orders (collectively, Lindenwood’s “COVID Losses”).
`
`Lindenwood’s First Amended Complaint alleges in considerable detail how the presence
`
`of the Coronavirus on its campus caused Lindenwood to experience both direct physical loss and
`
`damage to property (either prong is alone sufficient to trigger coverage). Lindenwood’s First
`
`Amended Complaint also alleges that the Policy here is unique and quite unlike the policies
`
`considered by other courts in that it expressly contemplates “virus” as a Covered Cause of Loss,
`
`which propels Lindenwood’s claim that coverage was triggered far beyond the plausibility
`
`standard necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.
`
`Because the Policy’s “Contamination” exclusion, which Zurich modified by endorsement,
`
`is an integral part of Lindenwood’s argument that its COVID Losses are covered under the Policy,
`
`Lindenwood urges the Court to start its analysis by considering this exclusion.
`
`A.
`
`The Policy’s “Contamination” Exclusion, as Zurich Modified It by Policy
`Endorsement, Dictates that “Virus” Is a Covered Cause of Loss
`
`Zurich contends that “Lindenwood’s claims fall squarely within the Contamination
`
`exclusion.” (Doc. 37 at 30). But satisfying Zurich’s desire to wield the Policy’s Contamination
`
`exclusion to deny coverage for Lindenwood’s COVID Losses would require the Court to upend
`
`long-standing principles of insurance contract interpretation. This Court should reject Zurich’s
`
`argument and instead hold that the Policy’s Contamination exclusion, as Zurich modified it by
`
`Policy endorsement, dictates that “virus” (e.g., the Coronavirus) is a Covered Cause of Loss.
`
`Lindenwood’s “all-risk” Zurich Edge Policy provides coverage for Lindenwood’s COVID
`
`Losses because, under its plain language, the exclusion upon which Zurich relies does not apply.
`
`Indeed, the Policy includes an endorsement by which Zurich expressly deleted “virus” from the
`
`Policy’s Contamination exclusion (the “Virus Deletion Endorsement”). (FAC at ¶¶ 117-21, 126).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 11 of 39 PageID #: 1690
`
`Nevertheless, in response to Lindenwood’s claims (and the deluge of similar claims under
`
`the same Zurich Edge Policy form), Zurich has taken the position that the Virus Deletion
`
`Endorsement applies only to Louisiana locations based solely upon the title of the endorsement
`
`that refers to “Louisiana.” (Doc. 37 at 33-35). But that argument fails because the Policy contains
`
`a clear and unambiguous provision stating that titles of endorsements “shall not in any way affect
`
`the provisions to which they relate” (the “Titles Provision”). And unlike other state-titled
`
`endorsements to this Zurich Edge Policy that expressly limit the geographical scope of their
`
`application within their provisions to one state (such as the New York and Connecticut
`
`Amendatory Endorsements), the Virus Deletion Endorsement does no such thing.
`
`Indeed, Zurich’s position that the headings in the Policy should be used to define the scope
`
`of coverage is belied by long-established principles of insurance policy interpretation:
`
`• Unambiguous policy language – such as the Titles Provision that says that titles
`may not be used to interpret the policy – must be enforced as written;
`
`• Exclusionary clauses – such as the Virus Deletion Endorsement, which modifies
`the Contamination exclusion to remove virus – must be strictly construed against
`the insurer in favor of coverage; and
`
`• To the extent policy language is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in
`favor of the insured.
`
`When presented with claims for COVID Losses, Zurich disregarded basic principles of
`
`insurance contract interpretation turned its back on Lindenwood and other similarly situated
`
`policyholders who paid premiums believing they had insurance coverage for precisely the type of
`
`losses they suffered.
`
`Moreover, Zurich’s position also is undercut by its own conduct. Zurich attached the Virus
`
`Deletion Endorsement to Zurich Edge policies issued to many policyholders – like Lindenwood –
`
`with no Louisiana locations. Even worse, in the Fall of 2020, Zurich sought and received approval
`
`for a revised Louisiana Amendatory Endorsement to the Zurich Edge Policy that now states:
`
`“THIS ENDORSEMENT ONLY APPLIES TO LOCATIONS IN LOUISIANA” (the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 12 of 39 PageID #: 1691
`
`“Modified Louisiana Endorsement”). This language is absent in the Virus Deletion Endorsement
`
`contained in Lindenwood’s Policy and other Edge Policies for which Zurich has denied coverage.
`
`Zurich’s after-the-fact conduct is either conclusive evidence that the Virus Deletion
`
`Endorsement as it appears in Lindenwood’s Policy unambiguously applies to the whole Policy or,
`
`at a minimum, concedes a prior ambiguity that must be resolved in favor of coverage for the
`
`insured – Lindenwood. At a minimum, this revelation requires discovery into the circumstances
`
`behind why, after the emergence of COVID Losses like Lindenwood’s, Zurich added a Louisiana
`
`geographical limitation into a Virus Deletion Endorsement that had no such limitation.
`
`Each of Zurich’s arguments as to why the Virus Deletion Endorsement does not apply to
`
`the entire Policy is meritless. As the drafter of the Policy, it was incumbent upon Zurich to clarify
`
`its intention within the plain language of the Policy. It cannot wait until after a claim is filed to
`
`craft its arguments to deny coverage. Indeed, the law of insurance policy interpretation requires
`
`the precise opposite result: in favor of coverage for the insured.
`
`1.
`
`Zurich Seeks to Upend Long-Established Rules of Insurance Policy
`Interpretation
`a.
`The Titles Provision expressly prohibits attaching meaning to
`the Virus Deletion Endorsement’s title.
`
`
`
`Under Missouri law, when interpreting the language of an insurance policy, its provisions
`
`“are read in the context of the policy as a whole.” Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 476 F.3d 620, 624
`
`(8th Cir. 2007). “Policy terms are given the meaning which would be attached by an ordinary
`
`person of average understanding if purchasing insurance.” Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 963
`
`F.3d 753, 763 (8th Cir. 2020). “Where insurance policies are unambiguous, they will be enforced
`
`as written….” Id.
`
`According to the Policy’s plain language, titles cannot be used to interpret the Policy and
`
`must be given no meaning or affect:
`
`6.21. TITLES
`
`The titles of the various paragraphs and endorsements are solely for
`reference and shall not in any way affect the provisions to which they relate.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 13 of 39 PageID #: 1692
`
`(Policy § 6.21) (emphasis added). Because this provision is clear and unambiguous, this Court must
`
`enforce it as written and may not “create an ambiguity in order to distort the language” of the Virus
`
`Deletion Endorsement “or enforce a particular construction which it might feel is more appropriate.”
`
`Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 719 F.3d 868, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Rodriguez
`
`v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo. 1991)). Thus, the reference to
`
`“Louisiana” in the title of the endorsement has no relevance to, and should not be considered in,
`
`determining the scope of the exclusion.
`
`
`
`Indeed, the insurance marketplace is full of provisions, endorsements and policy forms
`
`whose titles and headings have no relevance to the actual scope and meaning of the provisions
`
`themselves. See, e.g., Sylvester & Sylvester, Inc. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2020-cv-00817,
`
`2021 WL 137006, at *5 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 7, 2021) (applying “Food-Borne Illness”
`
`endorsement to COVID-19 business interruption claim where endorsement “contains no limitation
`
`that the risk must be related to food, but rather applies to ‘a contagious or infectious disease,’”
`
`explaining “the scope of coverage is determined not by the headings or titles used by the insurer,
`
`but by the policy language itself”).
`
`Zurich seeks to have this Court ignore a standard policy provision (included in the Policy
`
`by Zurich itself) that directs policyholders like Lindenwood to rely on the terms and conditions of
`
`the Policy to determine the scope of coverage without regard to headings and titles. But courts
`
`across the nation have consistently rejected the same arguments advanced by insurers that Zurich
`
`advances here.1
`
`
`1
`See, e.g., Welch Foods, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA et al., 659 F.3d 191, 193 (1st
`Cir. 2011) (enforcing provision stating “[t]he descriptions in the headings of this policy are solely for convenience, and
`form no part of the terms and conditions of coverage”); MDL Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 274 F. App’x 169,
`171 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding “District Court overlooked the caution in the binder providing that the titles of the
`endorsements ‘are for convenience only’”); Pine Bluff Sch. Dist. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 984 F.3d 583, 593 (8th Cir. 2020)
`(rejecting use of section header to interpret coverage where policy explicitly stated “[t]he titles and headings to [the]
`endorsements of the Policy are included solely for ease of reference [and] do not in any way limit, expand or otherwise
`affect the provisions of such parts, sections, subsections or endorsements.”); Miami-Luken, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co.,
`No. 1:16-cv-876, 2018 WL 3424448, at *7 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2018) (rejecting argument that heading in policy is
`relevant to scope of coverage where policy explicitly precluded headings from terms and conditions of coverage);
`Beaufort Rentals LLC v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., No. 9:18-cv-02658-DCN, 2018 WL 6248770, at *4 (D.S.C. Nov.
`29, 2018) (rejecting argument that exclusion contained in endorsement titled “Property Manager and Real Estate” only
`applied to property management when policy explicitly precluded headings from defining scope of coverage).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 14 of 39 PageID #: 1693
`
`This Court should do the same and give full meaning and effect to the Policy’s clear and
`
`unambiguous “Titles” provision.2
`b.
`State-titled endorsements without geographic limitations – like
`the Virus Deletion Endorsement – apply to the entire policy.
`
`Courts regularly apply state-titled endorsements that do not contain express geographical
`
`limitations to the entire policy.
`
`For example, in John Akridge Co. v. Travelers Cos., 837 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1993), a case
`
`on all fours with this action, a property insurer asserted that a coverage action related to property
`
`damage that occurred in Washington, D.C., was time-barred by the policy’s two-year contractual
`
`limitations period. Id. at 7. The policyholder, on the other hand, argued that a three-year limitations
`
`period in an endorsement titled “Maryland Changes” applied because “neither the title nor the
`
`language of the endorsement in any way limits its application to Maryland properties.” Id. at 8. The
`
`Akridge court agreed with the policyholder’s interpretation for two reasons and held that the
`
`“Maryland Changes” endorsement applied policy wide – not just to Maryland locations. First, “no
`
`language in the endorsement limits its application to insured property located in Maryland.” Id.
`
`Second, the court noted that other endorsements the insurer had issued in other policies did use
`
`geographically limiting language. These other endorsements showed that “had Travelers wished to
`
`limit its endorsement to insured property located in Maryland, it was more than capable of doing
`
`so.” Id. Likewise, here, Zurich included geographic limitations in some of its state-titled
`
`endorsements in this Policy, but not in the Virus Deletion Endorsement. See infra A.1.c.
`
`
`2
`Lindenwood acknowledges that one court interpreting an Edge Policy recently dropped a footnote in its letter
`opinion stating that it was “unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument” about the effect of the Virus Deletion Endorsement.
`Manhattan Partners, LLC, et al. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. In. Co., No. 20-14342 (SDW), at 4 n.3 (D. N.J. March 17,
`2021). But the Manhattan Partners court improperly relied entirely on the title of the endorsement in suggesting the
`endorsement was limited to a single state. Id. Although the policy at issue in that case includes the same “Titles”
`provision as the Policy here, the plaintiffs in Manhattan Partners did not raise it in their briefing (see Ex. 5 (excerpt
`of plaintiffs’ briefing on the contamination exclusion) – making it perhaps unsurprising that the court expressed it was
`“unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument.” Because the Manhattan Partners court was not fully apprised of the relevant
`language in the policy (which likely would have driven a different resu