Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Commercial Contracts newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 28, 2021, 6:04 PM EDT ) A New York personal injury law firm took Hartford Insurance Co. to New York federal court over pandemic losses it says it's owed, alleging the insurer is skirting its duties under a policy it issued shortly before the first major virus outbreak in the United States.
Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Associates said its all-risk policy with Hartford protected it against catastrophic events like the coronavirus pandemic, and included civil authority coverage for the suspension of business operations required under government stay-at-home orders. Employees at the firm's Long Island office contracted COVID-19, the illness caused by a coronavirus, the firm said in a complaint filed Thursday, making the space unsuitable for work.
Measures were taken to "physically alter" and close the office to prevent the reemergence of the virus, the firm said. That constituted a physical loss entitling the firm to coverage under the Hartford policy, it said. Noting that the policy contained no exclusions for viruses, the firm said it was owed coverage under its plain language.
The firm also argued that Hartford should have at least considered the possibility of covering losses for businesses forced to close because of the pandemic when it issued it a policy in early March 2020. At the time, it said, COVID-19 was known to be in the U.S., but the risk of a pandemic to businesses was not widely appreciated.
Neither Hartford nor any of its agents or insurance brokers raised the possibility of pandemic coverage or a lack thereof for the firm, it alleged in the complaint.
Hartford "should not be able to simply rely on preexisting, cookie-cutter language it had been using for years in the face of a new risk that was known prior to the issuance of this policy. [Hartford] could have protected itself, and it did not," the firm argued.
The firm noted that it never filed a claim, but instead chose to bring its suit when Hartford informed it at the end of March last year that there would be no business interruption coverage under its policy. The firm said it had a reasonable and objective expectation of coverage considering the outbreak that started in March 2020.
Included in its coverage were expenses incurred cleaning the firm's office and rearranging its layout to prevent the continued spread of the virus, the firm said. It is seeking a jury trial and a judgment that its losses are covered under its policy.
Counsel for the firm and its founding partner did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for Hartford did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Associates is represented by Daniel P. Buttafuoco of the firm, Richard M. Golomb and Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Golomb & Honik, Arnold Levin, Frederick Longer and Daniel Levin of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Rachel N. Boyd, and Paul W. Evans of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC.
Counsel information for Hartford wasn't immediately available.
The case is Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Associates PLLC et al. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, case number 2:21-cv-03042, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
--Editing by Vincent Sherry.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
