On July 1, 2020, an Ingham Michigan Judge dismissed a claim of first impression, ruling in favor of an insurer’s decision to deny business interruption coverage due to the finding that the insured business owner did not suffer a direct physical loss under the policy.

Similar to many lawsuits on this uniquely 2020 issue, the case (Gavrilides Management Company v. Michigan Insurance Company) focused on whether there was a “direct physical loss of or damage to the insured’s property” which would trigger the coverage for business interruption. This particular claim centered on a business owners’ two restaurants in Lansing Michigan in the amount of $650,000.

The insurer argued that the business interruption coverage kicks in by an occurrence that actually alters or damages the property, which apparently did not occur. The claimant argued that non-destructive losses are also covered by the policy.
Continue Reading Recent COVID-19 Business Interruption Decision is a Win for Insurers

The coronavirus has impacted more than an individual’s health and well-being. In the wake of this global pandemic, many businesses have been impacted — whether it be from an order from local or state government or because it has been directly hit with employees or customers who were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Businesses have had to grapple with the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” and alter their budget to purchase PPE and other sanitary items. Projections for revenue for 2020 were obliterated in the process leaving business owners with difficult decisions in terms of whether it is worthwhile to remain open in a limited capacity, temporary closure, furloughs, layoffs, bankruptcy, or in some cases going out of business. The Payroll Protection Program instituted by the Federal Government has provided a temporary salve, however, in many cases business losses continue in big and small ways.

Business Interruption Insurance

The natural offshoot of this business and economic disruption for businesses is whether their business insurance coverage, for which its owners paid premiums month in and month out, ‘owe’ for business income lost, and additional expenses, due to a viral pandemic such as to COVID-19.

Multiple insurers are facing federal class action lawsuits for denying business interruption claims. Further, claims by business owners for business disruption losses have increased exponentially. This post endeavors to examine some of the issues that will be at the forefront for business owners, and carriers, as it pertains to COVID-19.

Coverage


Continue Reading What You Need to Know About COVID-19 and Business Interruption Insurance Coverage

Congratulations! You were awarded a judgment against the defendant in your lawsuit, all appeals are exhausted, and the judgment is now final. In theory, once the judgment is final, the defendant pays the judgment and the matter is resolved. This, however, rarely happens and additional steps are needed in order to obtain the monies owed.

Bank Garnishment in Florida

One way to collect the judgment is through garnishing the debtor’s bank account by the issuance and service of a “Writ of Garnishment.” The Writ allows a bank to freeze the debtor’s assets in its control and creates a lien upon the debt or property garnished at the time of service of the Writ. Below are the steps needed to take under Florida Statutes:

  • Provide the location and name of the debtor’s bank;
  • File a Motion for Garnishment and Writ of Garnishment Order with the Clerk of Court; and,
  • Once the Order is issued, serve the Writ of Garnishment on the debtor’s bank (the “garnishee”) by a process server.

The garnishee must then file an answer within twenty (20) calendar days of being served, stating what sum and what tangible or intangible personal property of the debtor it has or had in its possession or control at the time of filing the answer. Failure to file an answer may entitle the creditor to judgment against the garnishee.

Notice to Judgment Debtor


Continue Reading How Can I Collect a Judgment?

CAK big wheelYeah, that’s me on a Big Wheel at age 6 or 7. Check out that air! Good thing there was grass for soft landing….

Recently, my law partner and I tried a temporary injunction in a complicated business dispute. When I cross-examined the opposing expert, he answered “Yes” to most of my leading questions, as

Guest post by Henderson Franklin Attorneys Suzanne Boy and Carlos Kelly

iStock_000015122897XSmallThese are important questions, and like many questions involving the law, the answer is “It depends.” There are pros and cons to both arbitration and a traditional lawsuit in court. Arbitration can be (but is not always) faster. But faster doesn’t necessarily mean cheaper all the way around.

Is faster better?

For example, the filing and arbitrator fees can be significantly higher (at least double) than filing fees for many civil lawsuits. And, if arbitration is quicker than resolving a dispute in the court system, that may not necessarily translate to significantly smaller legal fees. Instead, a similar amount of work (discovery, pre-trial motions, and exchanging exhibits, for example) could take place in a shorter amount of time.

Arbitration can be useful if you have a dispute that you want to keep out of the public eye, though a noisy party on the other side of the case could still bring media or social media attention.

Proceeding through the court system can be (but is not always) slower than resolving a dispute through arbitration.

Can you appeal the decision?


Continue Reading Business Owners: Should You Arbitrate or Should You Litigate in Court?