Newsletters

106

A Double First: Jurisprudence on YouTube and First Dismissal of a Claim for Business Interruption Following the Coronavirus

On July 1, Michigan Circuit Court Judge Joyce Draganchuk heard a motion by teleconference via Zoom. However, the hearing and the summary judgment rendered on the bench were broadcast live on YouTube on behalf of Judge Draganchuk. It is therefore a first and it will be interesting to see if our Quebec Courts will admit the video format, the recording of which is still available on YouTube, to plead precedents.

In this case (Gavrilides Management Co. v. Michigan Insurance Co., j. Joyce Draganchuk, July 1, 2020, Mason, 30th Circuit, Michigan, USA, https://youtu.be/Dsy4pA5NoPw), the insured, owner of two restaurants, claimed from its insurer the loss of business interruption since it had to close the restaurants following the orders of the authorities in the context of the pandemic linked to the coronavirus. The insurer brought a motion to dismiss this claim for which this judgment was rendered. It claimed that there was no direct physical damage as required by the terms of the insurance cover, namely that there would be coverage if the commercial activities were suspended but only if the suspension was caused by physical damage to the insured property. Finally, the insurer argued in the alternative that the virus exclusion applied.

The insured claimed that its losses were covered under public authority coverage, saying that the government order, which prevented customers from entering the restaurants, resulted in physical losses. Furthermore, it argued that the virus exclusion was ambiguous.

The judge dismissed the insured’s argument that there was physical damage since the virus was never present on the premises and nothing physically damaged the insured property. Thus, since there had been no tangible damage to property, the judge granted the insurer’s motion and dismissed the insured’s claim. In addition, the judge considered that the virus exclusion would have excluded this claim from coverage.

Note that this decision seems to be the first that was rendered for coverage claims for business interruption related to the coronavirus. However, according to our research, multiple lawsuits have been brought against insurers, both in Canada and in the United States. We will follow this file for you and report in due course.

106

Authors

Articles in the same category

Is Planned Obsolescence Finally Coming to an End on October 5, 2025?

While a dishwasher from the 1980s can still run smoothly, many newer models seem to break down after just a few cycles! The 2023 adoption of the Act to Protect Consumers Against Planned Obsolescence and to Promote the Durability, Repairability and Maintenance of Goods1 (hereinafter the “Anti-Obsolescence Act“), which modified the Consumer Protection Act2 (the “C.P.A.“), aimed […]

Caution Regarding Appeal Deadlines in Bankruptcy and Insolvency Matters!

In its recent decision in Syndic de Bopack inc. (2025 QCCA 909), the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that, in matters governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is ten days from the date of the judgment. This principle is particularly important to bear in mind, as in […]

Who Must Be Represented by a Lawyer? Beware of Sanctions!

In civil matters, self-represented litigants are increasingly common before the Quebec courts. This possibility is expressly provided for in article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”), which allows any person to be self-represented. However, this right is subject to several exceptions outlined in article 87 C.C.P., which provides mandatory legal representation in certain […]

Latent and Costly Defects

Can buyers of a property with latent defects resell it and claim from their seller the difference between the two transactions? This is one of the questions addressed by the Superior Court in Ouellette c. Blais, 2024 QCCS 1025, upheld by the Court of Appeal on May 26, 2025. The Facts: Charmed by a large […]

If it is Excluded, No Obligation to Defend Rules the Court of Appeal

The Québec Court of Appeal has just issued an important decision for the insurance industry: Intact Insurance Company v. Hydromec Inc., 2025 QCCA 803, overturning a Wellington-type order that had been granted at first instance. A quick reminder: a Wellington motion allows an insured to compel their insurer to take up their defense as soon […]

Rain or Shine: Perhaps Not Between Insurers and Insureds

Human activity has been clearly identified as the main cause behind the rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn is the leading cause of climate change1. Although the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries, including Canada—sought to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, scientists now agree that this target […]