Opinion ID: 6316860
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Loss to Properties Other Than Plaintiffs’

Text: Plaintiffs have also failed to allege that COVID-19 caused loss or damage to properties “other than the covered property” as required to plead a breach of the Civil Authority provision. The Civil Authority Provision “is contingent on a ‘Covered Cause of Loss’ damaging property— albeit, as relevant here, property off the business premises.” Gilreath Fam. & Cosm. Dentistry, 2021 WL 3870697, at . No complaint at any point in time alleges more than conclusory statements that physical loss or damage to properties other than their own occurred, so they have failed to state a breach of contract claim against Cincinnati Insurance. Plaintiffs argue that the shutdown orders issued early in the COVID-19 pandemic permit recovery under Michigan law, based on a line of cases following government shutdown orders issued during riots in Detroit in the summers of 1967 and 1968. See Southlanes Bowl, Inc. v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Ins. Co., 208 N.W.2d 569, 570 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973) (per curiam); Sloan v. Phoenix of Hartford Ins. Co., 207 N.W.2d 434, 437 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). In those cases, although “[n]one of the plaintiffs’ establishments were physically damaged,” Michigan courts concluded that the plaintiffs suffered a compensable loss under their respective business interruption insurance policies. Sloan, 207 N.W.2d at 435, 437; Southlanes Bowl, 208 N.W.2d at 570. However, the shutdown orders issued in 2020 are demonstrably dissimilar to those issued in the late-1960s. In the 1967 and 1968 orders, the Governor of Michigan implemented a curfew closing “all places of amusement,” in response to physical damage to property in Detroit. These orders completely “prevent[ed] access to plaintiffs’ place of business.” Sloan, 207 N.W.2d at 435, 437. In contrast, the Michigan shutdown orders issued in 2020 permitted and encouraged businesses to remain operational. For example, Michigan Executive Order 2020-094 closed “places of public accommodation” to “ingress, egress, use, and occupancy by members of the public,” but provided: Places of public accommodation subject to this section are encouraged to offer food and beverage using delivery service, window service, walk-up service, drive- 4Mich.Exec. Order No. 2020-09(1)(h) (2020), available at https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7- 387-90499_90705-521789--,00 html. Nos. 21-2644/2715/2718 Brown Jug, et al. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 10 through service, or drive-up service, and to use precautions in doing so to mitigate the potential transmission of COVID-19, including social distancing. In offering food or beverage, a place of public accommodation subject to this section may permit up to five members of the public at one time in the place of public accommodation for the purpose of picking up their food or beverage orders, so long as those individuals are at least six feet apart from one another while on premises. Id. Therefore, access to the area immediately surrounding the plaintiffs’ properties was limited, but not “prohibited” as required by the Civil Authority provision. See Santo’s, 15 F.4th at 402 (“It was as if the government temporarily rezoned all restaurants in the State solely for takeout dining.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to allege a breach of the Civil Authority provision.