throbber
Case: 4:20-cv-01503-HEA Doc. #: 42 Filed: 04/07/21 Page: 1 of 39 PageID #: 1680
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket