BROADCASTS.com

b'

Ninth Circuit Is Exhausted by Covid Insurance Claims Suit\\n\\nKhatchik Hairabedian d/b/a Kris Mobil ("Khatchik") appealed from the \\ndistrict court\'s order granting Defendant Security National Insurance \\nCompany\'s ("Security") motion to dismiss this action for insurance \\ncoverage in Khatchik Hairabedian, Dba Kris Mobil v. Security National \\nInsurance Company, a Texas Corporation, No. 22-55355, United States \\nCourt of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (July 21, 2023) applied its precedent.\\n\\nTHE CLAIM\\n\\nKhatchik sought coverage from its insurer, Security, for COVID-19 \\nrelated economic losses. However, the policy had a virus exclusion that \\nprovides: Security "will not pay for loss or damage caused by or \\nresulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces \\nor is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease." The \\nvirus exclusion "applies to all coverage under all forms and \\nendorsements," in the policy, including "forms or endorsements that \\ncover business income, extra expense or action of civil authority."\\n\\nKhatchik argued that the virus exclusion does not apply because \\ngovernment orders, not COVID-19, caused the losses. Here COVID-19 is the\\n efficient proximate cause of Khatchik\'s alleged losses.\\n\\nKhatchik also contended that the virus exclusion does not apply to \\npandemics because Security chose not to use a publicly available \\n"pandemic exclusion" in its policy. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Arguing\\n that the Virus Exclusion does not apply to bar coverage for losses \\nstemming from the COVID-19 pandemic defies the plain and unambiguous \\ntext of the Policy and is akin to arguing that a coverage exclusion for \\ndamage caused by fire does not apply to damage caused by a very large \\nfire.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nIt is time that courts stop dealing with lawsuits seeking insurance \\ncoverage resulting from Covid-19. They continue to fill the trial and \\nappellate courts and they continue to lose. They are causing unnecessary\\n expense to the plaintiffs, the insurers and the courts. Considering the\\n volume of precedent it is beginning to be considered a frivolous law \\nsuit that would subject the parties and their lawyers to sanctions.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\nPlease tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos \\nand let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.\\n\\nSubscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in \\nClaims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.\\n\\n\\nConsider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808\\n\\n\\nGo to Newsbreak.com\\xa0 https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01\\n\\n\\nFollow me on LinkedIn: \\nwww.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257\\n\\n\\nDaily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg;\\xa0 Go to the Insurance Claims Library \\u2013 https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library