Covid Does Not Cause Direct Physical Damage

My Last Comment on Direct Physical Loss Requirement Again
Post 5096

Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. Lexington Insurance Co., Wn.App. 2d, 566 P.3d 149 (2025), the Washington Court of Appeals held that COVID-19 does not trigger coverage under an "All Risk" policy that predicates coverage on "direct physical loss or damage" to property. Because the trial court's ruling in this matter is contrary to Tulalip, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court ordering dismissal.

In The Board Of Regents Of The University Of Washington v. Employers Insurance Company Of Wausau, A Liberty Mutual Company, No. 86493-9-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 9, 2025) the question of direct physical loss claims as a result of the Covid Pandemic got resolved again.

THE POLICIES

The University of Washington (UW) obtained from Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (Wausau) "All Risk" insurance coverage for several of its properties. UW sought coverage after government orders relating to COVID-19 required temporary closures of those properties. The relevant policy provisions predicate coverage on "direct physical loss or damage."

THE SUIT

Wausau denied coverage based on those policy provisions, UW filed a complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, bad faith, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Wausau filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on the policy provisions, and the trial court denied that motion.

ANALYSIS

Construction of an insurance policy is always a question of law. The Court of Appeals examined the policy to determine whether under the plain meaning of the contract there is coverage. If the policy's language is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce the policy as written. Also, relevant here, the insured bears the burden of showing that coverage exists.

Thus, the issue is whether UW has alleged the required "direct physical loss or damage" to trigger coverage under the relevant policies for the COVID-19-related losses at issue.

The Court of Appeals rejected the arguments raised by UW for a similar loss of functionality argument in Tulalip because, the insureds in Tulalip maintained possession of the property, the property was still functional and able to be used, and the insureds were not prevented from entering the property.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the insureds' deprivation was more akin to an abstract or intangible loss. An intangible loss is insufficient to establish direct physical loss or damage. The deprivation must still be caused by a physical impact to the property. The same reasoning and holding apply equally here because, as in Tulalip, UW's allegations show it suffered an abstract or intangible loss as opposed to a physical loss.

The policies define a "covered loss" as "[a] loss to covered property caused by direct physical loss or damage insured by this Policy." Thus, as in Tulalip, there must be direct physical loss or damage to property for UW to obtain coverage under the communicable disease coverage endorsements. Because UW has failed to allege such loss or damage the communicable disease coverage endorsements do not apply.

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Court of Appeals reject UW's arguments regarding its entitlement to coverage under the policies at issue for the same reasons set forth in Tulalip. UW's breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims fail on this basis. Because Tulalip is directly on point and fatal to UW's coverage arguments, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for for dismissal.

ZALMA OPINION

About two years ago I proposed to never again write about Covid claims and the need to prove direct physical loss. For reasons I don't understand parties continue to bring to court cases claiming direct physical loss that is really abstract and intangible losses. Just alleging direct physical loss where none exist wastes the time of the parties, the lawyers, the courts and the courts of appeal. Washington affirmed its precedent that should tell the people of the US to stop trying to make insurers provide a coverage it did not agree to provide.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.