Newsletters

113

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.

113

Articles in the same category

When Love and Construction Contracts Go Out the Window…

In Gélinas v. LG Constructions TR inc., rendered on October 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal comments on the legal framework governing a contractor unilaterally terminating two construction contracts. In particular, the Court clarifies the application of article 2129 of the Civil Code of Quebec (“C.C.Q.”), which provides, when applicable, that a client is bound […]

Finally Properly Interpreted, the Policy Had a Heart

In a recent decision, Morissette v. BMO Société d’assurance vie, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to the interpretation of insurance policies. Facts In June 2003, the Plaintiff took out a health insurance policy (hereinafter “Policy”) with BMO Société d’assurance vie (hereinafter “BMO”). The Policy provides, among other things, that $150,000 will be paid […]

When the Remedy Becomes the Dispute: Medical Liability Under Scrutiny

In the case N.L. v. Mathieu, 2025 QCCS 517, the Superior Court dismissed a medical liability lawsuit filed by a teacher against her former family doctor, in which she sought over $1.9 million in damages. The plaintiff accused her doctor of having inappropriately prescribed medication over several years, without proper follow-up and without informing her […]

Bill 89 and the Future of Labour Disputes in Quebec

Passed by the National Assembly on May 29, 2025, Bill 89 (An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out, hereinafter the “Bill”) will come into force on November 30, 2025. The Bill, which has faced strong opposition from unions, will bring significant […]

Latent Defects: Notice Must Be Given, but to Whom, When and How? The Court of Appeal Answers

On this past September 26, in the context of a claim for latent defects, in the matter of Meyer v. Pichette (Estate of Morin), 2025 QCCA 1193, the Court of appeal confirmed a Superior Court judgment which dismissed proceedings in warranty brought against former vendors as sufficient notice of the defects was not provided prior […]

You Should Not Believe Everything you Read on Social Media…

In a recent decision, Boucal v. Rancourt-Maltais, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to defamation cases. Facts The Defendant is a member of a private Facebook group called “Féministes Bas-St-Laurent”. In this group, Ms. Khadidiatou Yewwi allegedly posted testimony about the Plaintiff. Stating that she was troubled by the testimony and had herself heard […]