Newsletters

151

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.

151

Articles in the same category

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]