By Mike Curley

Law360 (November 13, 2020, 7:12 PM EST ) Travel insurer Assicurazioni Generali Group's U.S. branch is pushing back against a proposed class action by a policyholder claiming it failed to cover a trip she had to cancel because of COVID-19, saying the pandemic was already a known and foreseeable risk and therefore it's outside the policy's bounds.

In a motion to dismiss filed Friday, Generali said that its trip insurance policy sold to Audra Sanchez is meant only to cover "unforeseeable" risks, such as sudden weather events like earthquakes and hurricanes, but that COVID-19 was already a well-known and foreseeable risk by May when she bought the policy.

The pandemic was already spreading in communities across the country including Sanchez's by that point, the insurer argued, saying it's implausible that she couldn't have expected the trip to be canceled because of the virus.

"When plaintiff purchased her policy on May 10, 2020, COVID-19 was not merely foreseeable, but remained an active health crisis," the company said. "With no established cure or vaccine available, that ongoing crisis posed specific and foreseeable risks to any travel plans booked in May 2020 for that summer."

Sanchez sued in August, alleging that Generali U.S. has refused to provide reimbursements for a canceled road trip and accommodations in Texas, only offering a voucher that she never requested.

In the complaint, Sanchez said the family had to cancel the trip and stay in quarantine after her daughter was exposed to COVID-19 in July, before the family was planning to drive from Kansas to Texas. The complaint claimed that trip cancellation and quarantine because of unforeseeable events are explicitly covered by Generali's travel insurance.

In addition, Generali pointed out that in Sanchez acknowledged in her complaint that the insurer made a public statement on Jan. 29 saying that the COVID-19 pandemic was a foreseeable event that would not be covered by its policies.

While Sanchez's complaint points to the quarantine provision of the policy, Generali said even if COVID-19 was not foreseeable, she was not actually quarantined. The policy defines quarantine as an "enforced isolation," but Sanchez voluntarily chose to isolate on her doctor's recommendation, not as an enforced mandate, Generali told the court.

Only the county's health official has the authority to order a quarantine, Generali said, not Sanchez's doctor, and even if the doctor did, the letter attached to Sanchez's complaint only suggests the family perform a two-week quarantine.

Finally, the insurer argued the restrictions under Kansas' COVID-19 guidance were not "enforced isolation," as while the family was advised not to attend school, work or go anywhere, they could not remain 6 feet from others, they were otherwise free to leave their home.

Representatives for Sanchez and Generali could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.

Sanchez's suit is the third to hit Generali over canceled trips.

In June, Generali was slapped with a proposed class action in New York federal court accusing it of wrongfully withholding premiums for canceled trips despite the policyholder's "numerous requests," instead giving out vouchers that require rebooking by the end of the year.

Then in July, a Texas woman sued Generali in another proposed class action over the insurer's refusal to cover canceled road trips and accommodations for her daughter's wedding in Florida. She alleged that Generali had promised to send "detailed explanations" for the coverage denial but never did.

Sanchez is represented by Nathaniel Scearcy and Timothy L. Sifers of The Potts Law Firm LLP.

Counsel for Generali was not immediately available.

The case is Sanchez v. Generali U.S. Branch et al., case number 2:20-cv-02380, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

--Additional reporting by Daphne Zhang. Editing by Amy Rowe.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.