Cordish Cos. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.
| Citation | 573 F.Supp.3d 977 |
| Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-20-2419 |
| Parties | The CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Daniel John Healy, Anderson Kill LLP, Washington, DC, Maria Gail Brinkmann, Pro Hac Vice, Marshall Gilinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Anderson Kill PC, New York, NY, Pamela Hans, Pro Hac Vice, Anderson Kill PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Bryant Steven Green, Craig David Roswell, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.
The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. See Seth v. McDonough , 461 F. Supp. 3d 242, 247 (D. Md. 2020). This insurance dispute arises from financial losses sustained by The Cordish Companies, Inc. ("Cordish"), plaintiff, due to the pandemic.
COVID-19 is caused by a highly contagious virus. See Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), How COVID-19 Spreads , CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION (Apr. 2, 2020), https://bit.ly/2XoiDDh.1 Since at least March of 2020, the nation has been "in the grip of a public health crisis more severe than any seen for a hundred years." Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan , 461 F. Supp. 3d 214, 223 (D. Md. 2020). As of August 16, 2021, COVID-19 has infected more than 36 million Americans and caused over 620,000 deaths in this country. See COVID-19 Dashboard , The Johns Hopkins Univ., https://bit.ly/2WD4XU9 (last accessed August 16, 2021).2
The pandemic has impacted almost every aspect of our lives. As mitigation efforts began to take hold beginning in March 2020, efforts to thwart the spread of the virus included social distancing and avoidance of indoor spaces and public places. Many businesses limited their operations or shut their doors entirely, often because of governmental orders of civil authority. These efforts to stem the spread of COVID-19 took a huge "toll on businesses across the United States." Hair Studio 1208, LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. , No. 20-2171, 539 F.Supp.3d 409, 411 (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2021). This included many of the commercial properties operated by Cordish.3
As a result of the losses that Cordish suffered during the pandemic, Cordish submitted a claim to its insurer, defendant Affiliated FM Insurance Company ("AFM" or "FM"), pursuant to an "all risk" business interruption insurance policy that it had purchased from AFM at a cost of about $2 million. ECF 4, ¶ 8.4 The policy covered 97 commercial properties. AFM denied Cordish's claim.
This suit followed. See ECF 4 ("Complaint").5 Cordish asserts a claim for breach of contract and seeks a declaration that AFM "has a duty to indemnify Cordish under the Policy for the business interruption losses at the Covered Properties." Id. ¶ 140. Cordish appended several exhibits to the suit. These include a copy of the insurance policy in issue and related correspondence (ECF 4-2 at 1-125, the "Policy") as well as copies of various governmental emergency orders. ECF 4-2 at 126-130; ECF 4-3 at 1-56.
AFM answered the Complaint. ECF 9. Several months later, AFM moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 24. The motion is supported by a memorandum. ECF 24-3 (). Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 28), supported by 16 exhibits. Defendant has replied. ECF 31. Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Leave to File a Surreply" (ECF 32), along with the proposed surreply. ECF 32-1 (collectively, the "Motion for Surreply"). Defendant opposes the Motion for Surreply. ECF 34.
In resolving the Motion to Dismiss, the Court does not write on a clean slate. This case is one of many brought throughout the country by businesses against their insurance companies, alleging that the losses suffered during the pandemic are covered under business interruption insurance contracts. Indeed, since the filing of the reply, both sides have filed many notices of supplemental authority, bringing to the Court's attention decisions of other courts in some of these cases. See ECF 42; ECF 43; ECF 44; ECF 48; ECF 49; ECF 50; ECF 51; ECF 52; ECF 53. After plaintiff responded to one of defendant's notices of supplemental authority (ECF 45), defendant moved to strike plaintiff's response. ECF 46 ("Motion to Strike"). Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Strike. ECF 47.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion for Surreply and the Motion to Strike. And, I shall construe the Motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and grant it.
Affiliates of Cordish develop and operate numerous entities throughout the United States, including casinos, dining and entertainment venues, retail malls, hotels, meeting and conference venues, and office and residential buildings. ECF 4, ¶ 2. As events began to unfold in March 2020 with regard to the coronavirus, many governmental authorities across the country issued orders prohibiting "customers, patrons, suppliers, vendors and employees" from accessing business properties, including many of Cordish's properties. Id. ¶ 10; see id. ¶ 42. In particular, Cordish alleges that the pandemic led to the issuance of "numerous orders of civil authority" that "prohibited access" to the covered Properties or closure of its properties. Id. ¶ 12; see id. ¶ 13.
For example, on March 5, 2020, Maryland Governor Lawrence Hogan, Jr. issued a Proclamation declaring a state of emergency due to the spread of SARS-Cov-2, the virus causing the COVID-19 disease. Id. ¶ 43; see ECF 4-2 at 126-27 ("State of Emergency Order"). Ten days later, in connection with the State of Emergency Order, Governor Hogan issued an order closing to the public 13 gaming and racing facilities, including casinos, racetracks, and simulcast betting facilities. ECF 4-2 at 129. This order pertained to some of Cordish's Covered Properties, including Live! Casino & Hotel in Hanover, Maryland and at "Horseshoe Casino Baltimore." Id. at 130. Governor Hogan subsequently issued additional orders closing, inter alia , bars, restaurants, theaters, and malls. See ECF 4-3 at 1-31. And, on March 30, 2020, Governor Hogan issued a "stay at home" order that directed all persons in the State of Maryland to "stay in their homes or places of residence" except "to conduct or participate in Essential Activities" (defined in the order), and closing "Non-Essential Businesses" except for "Minimal Operations," which included allowing the presence of staff and owners to perform essential administrative functions. See Order of the Governor of the State of Maryland, Number 20-03-30-01 (Mar. 30, 2020).
In sum, plaintiff claims that the damage caused by the virus and these executive orders "resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in business interruption losses for Cordish...." ECF 4, ¶ 1. As a result of these losses, plaintiff submitted a claim for business interruption losses under its Policy with AFM. Id. ¶ 112.7 By letter of May 6, 2020, AFM denied coverage. Id. ¶ 114. In that letter, AFM averred, among other things, that the Contamination Exclusion bars coverage for losses claimed under the business interruption extensions. Id. ¶ 115. The parties then exchanged additional letters about the applicability of the Contamination Exclusion. Id. ¶¶ 116-118.
Cordish purchased an " ‘all-risk’ insurance policy" from AFM that provides up to $1,000,000,000 in coverage for business interruption losses and property damage with respect to 97 properties located throughout the country, including approximately 33 in Maryland ("Covered Properties"). Id. ¶ 4; see ECF 4-2. Coverage under the Policy was issued on March 10, 2020, for the period of February 28, 2020 to February 28, 2021. ECF 4-2 at 24. As noted, the premium was almost $2 million. ECF 4, ¶ 8.
The Policy provides coverage for losses from the interruption of Cordish's business, which is commonly known as business interruption coverage. Broadly, the Policy provides for a limit of liability of $1,000,000,000, and "covers property ... against ALL RISKS OF PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE," except as otherwise excluded. ECF 4-2 at 26, 45 (capitals in original). Specifically, the Policy provides, id. at 26 (bold in original):
This Company's total limit of liability, including any insured Business Interruption loss, will not exceed the Policy Limit of $1,000,000,000 as a result of any one occurrence subject to the respective sub-limits of liability shown elsewhere in this Policy.
Under the Policy, an occurrence is defined as "the sum total of all loss or damage of the type insured, including any insured Business Interruption loss, arising out of or caused by one discrete event of physical loss or damage ...." Id. at 87.
Further, the Policy states, id. at 63-66 (emphasis in original):
Notably, the Policy does not define "physical loss or damage."
The "Business Interruption Coverage" includes coverage for rental income losses, id. at 65-66:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.
...necessarily contemplates a tangible alteration to the property that requires repair, rebuilding, or replacement."); Cordish Cos. , 573 F. Supp. 3d at 998-99 ("The idea that the property may be ‘repaired or replaced’ is consistent with the view that the damage contemplated by the Policy must......
-
GPL Enter., LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
...requires some form of material alteration to the property that has experienced ‘loss or damage.’ " Cordish Cos., Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co ., 573 F. Supp. 3d 977, 997 (D. Md. 2021) ; accord Hamilton Jewelry, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co ., 560 F. Supp. 3d 956, 967 (D. Md. 2021) (" ‘dir......
-
In re Erie Covid-19 Bus. Interruption Prot. Ins. Litig.
...that “no Maryland State court has opined on the meaning of th[e] precise phrase [‘physical loss or damage'] in a reported opinion.” Id. at 997. guidance from Maryland state courts, the court in Cordish Cos. considered “the broader context of the policy,” specifically a clause in the policy ......
-
Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... the property that requires repair, rebuilding, or ... replacement."); Cordish Cos. , 573 F.Supp.3d at ... 998-99 ("The idea that the property may be 'repaired ... "[b]usiness income loss coverage"); Cordish ... Cos., Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. , 573 F.Supp.3d 977, ... 987 (D. Md. 2021) (interpreting policy covering ... ...