ARTICLE
28 October 2021

Louisiana Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Civil Authority Coverage Claims

ST
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Contributor

Simpson Thacher is one of the world’s most respected law firms. But for us, this has never simply been a matter of size or rankings. It’s the direct result of our commitment to one founding principle.

Our success is driven by that of our clients.

Since 1884, many of the world’s largest organizations have turned to us for smart solutions to critical commercial challenges. Today, approximately 1,500 lawyers in 13 global offices put the collective experience of the Firm to work for every client we serve.

Our teams start with a deep understanding of our clients’ business objectives. We share knowledge across practices and regions. We help our clients not only mitigate risk, but also discover opportunity. And each success begins with the same simple question...

How can we help you?

A Louisiana federal district court denied an insurer's motion to dismiss a suit seeking civil authority coverage, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged property damage and...
United States Louisiana Insurance

(Article from Insurance Law Alert, September 2021)

For more information, please visit the  Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.

A Louisiana federal district court denied an insurer's motion to dismiss a suit seeking civil authority coverage, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged property damage and a prohibition on access to the insured property. Pathology Lab. Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3378596 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2021).

The coverage dispute arose out of local and federal executive orders issued in connection with a hurricane that made landfall in Louisiana. A medical laboratory sought coverage for financial losses incurred during the duration of the government orders. The insurer denied coverage, arguing that civil authority coverage was unavailable because the orders were issued in anticipation of property damage (rather than in response to actual property damage) and did not completely prohibit access to the insured property. The court rejected both assertions.

The court acknowledged that an initial mandatory evacuation order, issued prior to the hurricane's arrival, did not trigger civil authority coverage because no property damage had yet occurred. However, the court concluded that subsequent orders requiring evacuation and business closures were issued in response to "extensive physical damage to all areas" surrounding the insured premises.

The insurer also argued that the government orders did not completely prohibit access to the insured premises as required by Louisiana law. In particular, the insurer claimed that the orders used non-mandatory language (e.g., "should") and included daily curfews that restricted access only during certain hours of the day. In addition, the insurer emphasized that laboratory employees accessed the property during the periods of closure to perform exigent medical services. Rejecting these assertions, the court concluded that access to the laboratory was "completely prohibited" based on the extent of physical devastation to nearby property and the mandatory nature of the orders, and that employees' alleged violations of those orders to perform urgent procedures were irrelevant.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More