Newsletters

162

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.

162

Articles in the same category

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

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 […]