Has anyone considered the legal and insurance implications for a business which re-opens?

[Ford_Prefect]

Suppose one of your customers sues you for becoming infected on the premises due to inadequate conditions.

Assuming culpability can be proven, what happens next?

The health insurance industry is already in panic mode over having to pay out in the pandemic.

[Mike 03]

1. Good point. I do think about this but have been wondering more about

the liability of certain governors, especially the ones that override the authority of mayors who want stricter measures. I do think lawsuits are coming, perhaps decades' worth.

I was under the impression (maybe false) that right or wrong, companies have wider latitude to set rules (so long as the governor gives them permission) and can always say, "Well you could have quit if you didn't want to work during a dangerous pandemic."

[GemDigger]

4. I think there is a big catch-22 in the arena.

If the governors say open up and the business does not, will the business lose the money they are given that is to go to the employees paychecks during the shutdown. If the employee is collecting UI and the business opens up and the employees are afraid to go to work, they will lose their unemployment checks.

I think the government is putting the screws to the people and businesses.

I don't know, I just don't trust this gop government and I put nothing past them when it comes to money.

[Mike 03]

6. Excellent points.

The hideous leadership and contradictory guidance from the federal government has forced people into making extremely difficult decisions, many of which (as you point out) are choices between two (potentially) bad outcomes.

[brer cat]

13. Bingo.

I believe Gov. Kemp opened GA businesses to keep people from collecting UI.

[GemDigger]

7. A lawsuit against the government is tricky.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html

Maybe?

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/rules-lawsuit-against-city-county-state.html

[redstatebluegirl]

2. It should start with the litigator in chief,

45 goes to court on everyone. Anyone who has lost someone to Covid-19 should sue him for negligence.

[Claustrum]

3. It's extremely hard to prove that you only contracted the virus at that business.

You could have gotten it at home, on your other trips out of your home, on the way to that business, etc.

[ScratchCat]

8. This and other legal concepts

Not much of a chance of a suit by a customer. And I am pretty sure people are already planning to try to set up these phony law suits because.... "human nature".

[SoonerPride]

5. I remember seeing an article that the administration was thinking about coming up with a way

To indemnify businesses.

But like most of their proposals, I'm sure they didn't actually follow upon it.

[underpants]

9. It was asked about at a presser

Trump said they look into it
The reporter asked “You haven’t looked into it yet?” but I’m not sure how incredulous the follow up was.

[Hoyt]

10. Will probably come down to whether the business took reasonable precautions, proving that's where

you got it, you used commonsense in going there in the first place, damages, etc. I'd have a hard time -- if a juror -- automatically finding for the plaintiff in such a lawsuit.

I suspect a lot of businesses are not reopening right away because of that fear.

[Wellstone ruled]

22. Will be interesting seeing how this plays out.

My guess is,tough luck,just part of your job description.

Thinking about the Coal Miners,and damaged lungs from gas and dust.

[uponit7771]

23. That would be a business that listened to the CDC, any business that claim states said they could

... I would think would be exposing themselves unnecessarily

[ProfessorGAC]

28. And Bad PR

The first barber shop that has customers get CV is done! Whether those folks actually got the illness there or not, the impression would potentially cause catastrophic business damage.

[gibraltar72]

11. Trump said he was gonna find a way around that. I suspect like he was gonna pay thugs

at his rallies legal expenses. Gives a false assurance then leaves them hanging. Can't imagine any lawyer says yeah this is a great idea.

[sop]

12. Under such circumstances, the business can be sued, and the liability insurer would likely deny

coverage for the liability loss, citing exclusions in the business owners' policy for pandemic losses.

The business owner (the policyholder) would then be responsible for his/her own defense costs, an expense normally covered under the liability portion of the policy, as well as any eventual settlement or award to the plaintiff.

If the business owner (the policyholder) disagrees with the denial of coverage by the insurance company, the insured can sue his/her own liability insurer for this denial of coverage, claiming the insurance company incorrectly interpreted and applied the policy language (an insurance policy is a contract), and wrongly denied coverage.

A court would then hear the case and render judgement, either finding for the plaintiff in the case, the policy holder who sued his/her own insurer, forcing the insurance company to provide liability coverage, and pay for both the defense costs and settlement/award. Or, the court could find in favor of the defendant, the insurance company, and uphold the original denial of coverage. The decision could then be appealed to higher courts, as necessary.

[Hortensis]

14. Yup. After the 2002 SARS, business insurers EXCLUDED coverage

on standard policies for damage causes by viruses and bacteria. Payouts were in the billions for that contained pandemic.

This isn't all greedy and immoral, for those who imagine it is. Insurers legally aren't allowed to take on risks so large that they couldn't pay the claims.

ALSO, and guessing this will take years to work its way through the courts before it's all settled, insurance is not allowed to cover illegal acts. Pretty sure knowingly maintaining a potentially dangerously unsafe workplace is against the law, even if the government encourages but doesn't require it.

[sop]

17. Any business that reopens under the current circumstances, without knowing how courts will

interpret such coverage disputes for declared pandemic losses, is risking everything. A handful of claims could put any of them out of business without proper insurance coverage. And business owners cannot argue they were not aware of the risks involved by reopening.

Courts are likely to find for the insurance companies, and uphold their denials of coverage for pandemic losses, specifically to avoid the catastrophic payouts that would inevitably result. These pandemic losses could bankrupt the entire insurance industry, and courts would view that as being "against public policy."

[Hortensis]

20. Yup to the danger. Much of the reopening is clearly about

shifting risk and costs down.

But, sure, courts will find for the contracted terms. Businesses didn't purchase coverage for business interruption losses from this pandemic. That product was not offered.

Payouts will be for covered causes of loss, like water damage or theft while the business was shut down.

Conservative business owners would have done better to connect the dots between the big exclusions to their coverage and the reality that every presidential administration has to stop potential pandemic diseases before they get loose. And not vote Republican. But we know how that went.

[Chainfire]

15. This crisis

It the biggest gift the legal system has ever had. There will be suits on top of suits for decades to come. The TV ads will ask, "Have you been harmed by CV-19. Call now, 1-800-BIG Money. Lawyers are standing by.

[lark]

16. Yes, I have been thinking about that and am sure that's exactly why they aren't reopening.

Saw the mayor of Savannah on tv, he said a lot of small tatoo parlours and hair dressers and massage parlours are not reopening because they can't do it safely. He didn't talk about how that gives Kemp the right to disallow their unemployment claims since the state said they should be open. Kemp didn't want them to open, he wants to hurt them and cause them to lose unemployment - that's the repugs wet dream - steal everything from the working class.

[old guy]

18. Wouldn't matter if a case was slam dunk.

The justice system is is so corrupt that sooner or later a repub judge would throw it out. If it reached the SCOTUS the verdict would be 5 to 4 to throw the case out. Count on it.

[Ford_Prefect]

19. Industrial business like Pork producers have different rules and obligations than small outfits, no?

There are safe practices for the employees, there are correct product standards, and work practices regarding industry standards.

Health and Safety applies in various ways to green grocers vs construction contractors vs antiques dealers, I think.

Therefore Liability might be read differently too?

[sop]

27. Historically insurance companies called it the War Exclusion Clause.

Insurers commonly exclude any peril for which they cannot afford to pay claims; they'd go bankrupt if suddenly faced with thousands or millions of expensive claims. Most insurance policies traditionally excluded coverage for "acts of war," things like invasion, insurrection, revolution, military coup and terrorism. This was expanded to include other occurrences that could also result in catastrophic losses, like a declared pandemic.

Each insurance policy varies as to named perils which are covered and excluded, depending on the nature of the business. Businesses faced with significant losses from catastrophic perils, like a meat packing plant at risk for possible contamination if a pandemic occurs, can purchase additional coverage. The typical gym, nail salon, tattoo parlor or bowling alley does not have such expanded risk coverage. It would be up to each business owner to purchase the necessary coverage.

[HarlanPepper]

21. Your second sentence answers the question

How would someone prove they contracted Covid 19 at said business? Seems like that would be very very difficult.

[Ford_Prefect]

25. I proposed that it could be, or at least a reasonable basis for damages could exist.

Chain of evidence was assumed in the original post. It is possible that current information on infection rate and path could be read differently in the very near future and thus allow charges. ATM this is hypothetical but not unlikely.

One of the questions has been answered in that Insurance companies appear to have excluded coverage for pandemic damages post 2002. That doesn't exclude potential legal damage claims against businesses large or small, merely the insurer liability. I am wondering what advice the various trade and business organisations are offering, too. Due Caution could wind up covering more ground than we anticipate.

[crickets]

24. K&R for the post and the discussion.

[lindysalsagal]

26. A big reason the schools remain closed

School is compulsory, so the government can force you to either send your kids, or maintain an approved home school program.

But if the government can't control the spread of a virus in a free country, it's now liable for any illnesses.

Parents can end public schools by suing them out of existence. They can sue the government as well.

This is going to force states to create new online and home school divisions.

Schools are going to need more lawyers and judges are going to have to sort it all out.

This is a nightmare.