Much to my dismay, I find I’m in agreement with Trump. He’s saying that if a business has interruption insurance, and pandemic is not specifically excluded, the insurance company should pay up. By implication, if the business interruption insurance covers only clearly specified risks that do not include pandemic, the insurance company doesn’t have to pay. Trump wants insurance companies to honor their contractual obligations.

Businesses that have business interruption insurance are, for the most part, well-established and successful. The chief beneficiary of a payout on the policy would be the owner, who is almost guaranteed to be a member of the recently-reviled 1%. I am curious as to who these new activists are that are so eager to flow cash into the hands of the 1%ers.

Emphasis mine.

"If I had it, I'd expect to be paid," Trump said of interruption insurance. "All of the sudden they need it ... and I don't see the word pandemic mentioned. Now in some cases, it is. It's an exclusion. But in a lot of cases, I don't see it. I don't see reference and they don't want to pay up. I would like to see the insurance companies pay if they need to pay, if it's fair."

I don't see him saying, as one might expect of AOC, that the insurance companies pay for something not included in their policies as written.

Why shouldn't a business get paid on their policy if they're paying for the interruption rider if the rider doesn't specifically exclude pandemic?

Like the 10,000 other things they specifically exclude?

Scene: insurance company HQ

CEO: Did we not exclude pandemics in our coverages?
Lawyer: Uh...that concept never crossed our minds.

I find myself in agreement with Parker and Darth. If I paid premiums for business interruption insurance and that policy did not specifically exempt pandemic, then I'd expect to get paid. Although, I'd also expect an argument from the insurance company as to what "business interruption" means if it's not clearly defined in the contract.

IMHO everyone so far is correct. The insurance companies right now are going over their policies with a fine tooth comb.

For example, most policies exclude insurance coverage if your business in whole or part is destroyed in a nuclear war.

In this case businesses were destroyed/damaged by government action. Mostly state government action, but in the case of the airlines, federal action. There may be an exclusion that will cover that. But, maybe not. There will be some interesting litigation. I’m sure this is an area of the law that Trump as a businessman is quite familiar with.

Just watch out for “pandemic” in the language, as it may not be relevant. It was not the direct cause of the business losses. Government action to mitigate the pandemic was the cause of the losses.

Isab Says:

"Just watch out for “pandemic” in the language, as it may not be relevant. It was not the direct cause of the business losses. Government action to mitigate the pandemic was the cause of the losses."

Interesting analysis... the pandemic wasn't the root cause of business losses... it was the governments response to the pandemic to prevent loss of life that was the root cause.

As it stands the united states has more than 18,000 dead and that is with stay at home orders being put in place. That number would be much higher if the government took no action at all.

I don't see this as being a winning argument in court that the government should have sacrificed the health, well being, and lives of the citizenry... or they are the "cause" of the business losses.

This is analogous to arguing that if ground water is contaminated by toxic industrial run off and the government declares it to be non-potable... that the government is responsible to the bottling company trying to sell said toxic water to consumers for any losses they suffer.

The government has a responsibility to respond to public health issues. They therefore cannot be the "cause" of business losses when acting in accordance with this responsibility.

“I don't see this as being a winning argument in court that the government should have sacrificed the health, well being, and lives of the citizenry... or they are the "cause" of the business losses.”

This will not be an argument made in court over whether the business losses are insured.

It is not relevant to the question of the policy coverage and whether the language specifically excludes government action from the list of things the *business interruption insurance* covers.

No need to even get to the subject of whether the government’s actions were reasonable on their face or not as the government itself has qualified immunity and will not be a party to the insurance case.

Isab,

An argument regarding whether or not insurance paid for by the business entities should cover a pandemic is reasonable.

I just don't see how this is going to be relevant:

"Just watch out for “pandemic” in the language, as it may not be relevant. It was not the direct cause of the business losses. Government action to mitigate the pandemic was the cause of the losses."

The pandemic is the root cause for the losses and will have to be the mainstay of any arguments.

Bringing the government into it as if it is their fault and the pandemic wasn't the direct cause is going to a very weak argument that is difficult to support.

If a building is condemned due to a vermin infestation it would seem silly to bring your insurance to court to cover your losses due to "government action" if in fact the policy doesn't cover you if your building is condemned.

I suspect they are going to have to win or lose the case on the basis of the pandemic alone.

Trump and Olson are talking about two very different situations. Trump is talking about where the insurance company carelessly wrote the policy without excluding pandemics. I read Olson's entire blog article, not just the Twitter "Cliff's Notes" version, and he was talking about the government forcing payout contrary to the very clear and ironclad terms of the policy.

The legislation under consideration would also reimburse the insurers forced to pay claims barred by the policy contracts, if that sort of thing matters to you.