Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a North Carolina-based movie theaters operator's lawsuit that sought coverage from its insurer for revenue losses from state-mandated shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. East Coast Entertainment of Durham LLC (ECE) v. Houston Casualty Co. (HCC), 21-2947. The "business income" clause of the policy ECE purchased from HCC stated: "We will pay the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary 'suspension' of your 'operations' during the 'period of restoration.' The 'suspension' must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at premises that are described in the Declarations and for which a Business Income Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations." Noting the majority view that has developed among federal appeals courts on the issue, the Seventh Circuit noted: "Shortly after ECE filed its opening brief on appeal, we issued our opinion in Sandy Point Dental P.C. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 20 F.4th 327 (7th Cir. 2021). In Sandy Point, we joined four other circuits in concluding that mere loss of use due to COVID-related closures does not constitute 'direct physical loss' when unaccompanied by any physical alteration to property … Since then, three other circuits have joined this consensus, and no court of appeals has held otherwise." The Seventh Circuit concluded in East Coast Entertainment: "Try as it might, ECE similarly fails to allege a physical alteration of its property. The mere presence of the [COVID] virus on surfaces did not physically alter the property, nor did the existence of airborne particles carrying the virus. ECE does not allege that it needed to 'repair[], rebuil[d] or replace[]' any structures or items on the premises, or that its business 'resumed at a new permanent location,' as contemplated in the Policy's 'period of restoration' definition. In short, the district court properly concluded that ECE was not entitled to coverage under the Policy."
*****
Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and Professor Emeritus of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. For more: https://www.stansoocher.com.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.