Philadelphia Eagles 0-2 in Attempts to Recover Insurance on COVID-Related Losses

The Philadelphia Eagles’ try and obtain insurance coverage protection for the lack of use of Lincoln Monetary Discipline throughout the COVID-19 pandemic was rejected for a second time by a Pennsylvania court docket, after a federal choose concluded their movement for reconsideration offered the identical arguments as a beforehand dismissed grievance.

In a Friday opinion, U.S. District Choose Michael M. Baylson for the Japanese District of Pennsylvania denied the Eagles’ movement for reconsideration relating to their dispute with their insurance coverage supplier, Manufacturing facility Mutual Insurance coverage Co. The court docket concluded that its dismissal of the swimsuit in October did not warrant reconsideration, discovering the movement wasn’t primarily based on any change within the regulation, new proof or clear error justifying reconsideration.

The Eagles had filed the lawsuit after Manufacturing facility Mutual denied their makes an attempt to recoup losses they suffered after having to switch the operation of their insured properties throughout the pandemic, together with Lincoln Monetary Discipline. The court docket beforehand dismissed the swimsuit after concluding that the Eagles’ claims did not fall beneath the coverage as a result of there was no bodily harm or alteration to the properties.

In Philadelphia Eagles v. Manufacturing facility Mutual Insurance coverage, the Eagles sought declaratory judgments for the alleged losses throughout the shutdown. Manufacturing facility Mutual argued that the coverage requires bodily harm to the property to acquire protection. In its prior resolution, the court docket cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court docket’s resolution this yr in Ungarean v. CAN & Valley Forge Ins., and the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s 2023 resolution in Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. Each circumstances held that protection for direct bodily lack of property is restricted to bodily alteration or harm to the property.

Whereas the Eagles argued these circumstances did not govern their swimsuit, Manufacturing facility Mutual claimed the court docket appropriately decided the case warranted dismissal beneath current Pennsylvania Supreme Court docket precedent. Baylson agreed with Manufacturing facility Mutual.

In accordance with the Eagles, Ungarean did not govern the case as a result of the coverage language in Ungarean is totally different and extra particular than the coverage language within the insurance coverage coverage at difficulty, dubbed the FM coverage. The Eagles additionally argued that Third Circuit precedent did not help dismissing the grievance. The court docket disagreed, concluding that the coverage’s language is almost similar to the language used within the two circumstances and requires bodily alteration to the insured properties to set off bodily loss or harm protection.

“[T]he Ungarean and Wilson courts’ analyses of restoration language was merely supplemental to their conclusions reached on the idea of the operative language associated to bodily loss or harm,” Baylson mentioned. “The Eagles’ argument that Ungarean and Wilson don’t govern the FM coverage due to the absence of non-dispositive restoration language is like saying two recipes will not be the identical as a result of one features a garnish whereas the opposite doesn’t—the principle elements are similar.”

The court docket additional concluded that the Eagles didn’t exhibit bodily alteration beneath state regulation, saying cancellations or low attendance at video games had nothing to do with the bodily attributes of the stadium itself.

“The Eagles argue its losses are tied to the bodily situation of the Linc as a result of ‘a bodily situation—the precise or threatened presence of COVID-19 at its stadium—almost eradicated or destroyed the stadium’s core operate,’ and that COVID-19 was current on the surfaces and within the air of the properties in a approach that did or would have bodily altered the airspace inside its premises and its surfaces,” Baylson mentioned. “However this doesn’t plausibly plead that its losses are tied to ‘bodily attributes’ of the properties by the presence of COVID-19.”

The Eagles’ legal professional, Charles A. Fitzpatrick IV of Clean Rome in Philadelphia, declined to remark. Manufacturing facility Mutal’s legal professional, Richard D. Gable Jr. of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig in Philadelphia, didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark.