Court Opinion

ID: 9908746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 18:06:02.824913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:29.719136
License: Public Domain

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                       Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                             STATE OF MINNESOTA
                             IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                   A23-0639

                            Fond du Lac Management, Inc.,
                                     Appellant,

                                          vs.

                            Lexington Insurance Company,
                                    Respondent,

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy #PJ193647, et al.,
                                      Respondents,

     Underwriters at Lloyd's, London - Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, et al.,
                                    Respondents,

                          Arch Specialty Insurance Company,
                                      Defendant,

                            Evanston Insurance Company,
                                    Respondent,

                      Allied World National Assurance Company,
                                    Respondent.

                               Filed December 11, 2023
                                      Affirmed
                               Smith, Tracy M., Judge

                             Carlton County District Court
                               File No. 09-CV-22-1172

Sean Copeland, Scott A. Buchanan, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,
Cloquet, Minnesota; and

Dan Drachler, Jacob H. Polin (pro hac vice), Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
San Francisco, California (for appellant)
Beth A. Jenson Prouty, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent Lexington Insurance Company)

Nicholas A. Dolejsi, Mackenzie Moy, Zelle LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Nos. PJ193647,
PJ1900131, PM1933021, PJ1900067, Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd. t/as Sompo
International, and Homeland Insurance Company of New York)

Stacy A. Broman, Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents
Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company and Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London – Aspen
Specialty Insurance Company)

Dan W. Goldfine, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, Arizona (for respondent Evanston
Insurance Company)

Daryl T. Fuchihara, Johnson, Kille & Seiler, P.A., Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent
Allied World National Assurance Company)

       Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Smith,

Tracy M., Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge

       In this insurance-coverage dispute, appellant-insured Fond du Lac Management,

Inc. (Fond du Lac) challenges the district court’s dismissal under Minnesota Rule of Civil

Procedure 12.02(e) of its contract claims against respondent-insurers 1 based on denial of

business-interruption coverage for losses due to COVID-19-related business closures.

Fond du Lac argues that the district court erred by determining that the complaint fails to

state a claim because it does not set forth alleged facts that support a finding of physical

1
 Respondent-insurers are those entities listed as respondents in the caption of this case.
Defendant Arch Specialty Insurance Company takes no part in this appeal.

                                             2
loss or damage to Fond du Lac’s properties caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 2 Because

we conclude that Fond du Lac failed to allege that the virus was present at and contaminated

its properties, causing direct physical loss or damage, we affirm.

                                         FACTS

        The complaint and attached exhibits set forth the following alleged facts. Fond du

Lac operates Black Bear Casino Resort, Fond-du-Luth Casino, and Black Bear Golf Course

in Carlton County and St. Louis County. Fond du Lac is the “corporate business

committee” for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the Band).

        Fond du Lac purchased an all-risk property-damage insurance policy from insurers

to provide coverage for its casinos and golf course. The policy became effective on July 1,

2019.

        On March 13, 2020, the Band declared a state of emergency concerning the COVID-

19 pandemic. The Band then ordered Black Bear Casino Resort and Fond-du-Luth Casino

to close beginning March 18, 2020. 3 As a result of these closures, Fond du Lac suffered a

loss of “millions of dollars.” On June 15, 2020, the casinos reopened, but at reduced

capacity pursuant to the Band’s orders. The reduced capacity resulted in further losses.

        In February 2021, Fond du Lac requested business-interruption coverage for its

losses. The policy provided the following business-interruption coverage:

2
  The SARS-CoV-2 virus causes the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). World Health Org.,
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=
tab_1 [https://perma.cc/45UV-JU2H].
3
 Black Bear Golf Course was already closed for the winter and remained closed during the
relevant policy period.

                                             3
                Against loss resulting directly from interruption of business,
                services or rental value caused by direct physical loss or
                damage, as covered by this Policy to real and/or personal
                property insured by this Policy, occurring during the term of
                this Policy.

       In a letter dated July 6, 2022, a claims adjuster, on behalf of insurers, denied Fond

du Lac’s request for coverage. The letter stated that the losses were not covered under the

policy because “there is no evidence that the closure of the casinos and golf course or the

continued reduced capacity issues at the casinos were the result of physical loss or damage

to property.”

       On June 29, 2022, Fond du Lac sued insurers for breach of contract and breach of

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Fond du Lac also sought declaratory relief

establishing coverage. Insurers moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim

on which relief can be granted under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e). The

district court granted insurers’ motion to dismiss, concluding that Fond du Lac did not

allege “any facts that, if true, would plausibly show any physical loss or injury to [its]

insured properties.”

       Fond du Lac appeals.

                                        DECISION

       When reviewing a case dismissed under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e)

for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, appellate courts must determine

“whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Hebert v. City of

Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008). The standard of review is de novo. Id.

                                              4
       “A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss based on [r]ule 12.02[e] if it is

possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory,

to grant the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (Minn.

1963). In analyzing the sufficiency of a claim, appellate courts “accept the facts alleged in

the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014). “[T]he pleading of

broad general statements that may be conclusory is permitted.” Halva v. Minn. State Colls.

& Univs., 953 N.W.2d 496, 503 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). But appellate courts are

not bound by legal conclusions in the complaint. Hebert, 744 N.W.2d at 235. Appellate

courts consider the complaint as a whole, “including the facts alleged throughout the

complaint and the attachments to the complaint.” Hardin Cnty. Sav. Bank v. Hous. &

Redevelopment Auth. of City of Brainerd, 821 N.W.2d 184, 192 (Minn. 2012); see Minn.

R. Civ. P. 10.03 (“A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a

part of the statement of claim . . . set forth in the pleading.”).

Legal Framing

       Fond du Lac claims that it is entitled to coverage for losses under the business-

interruption provision of the policy. For coverage under that provision, the losses must

have resulted directly from an interruption of business caused by “physical loss or damage”

to the insured properties. Fond du Lac argues that it sufficiently pleaded that the SARS-

CoV-2 virus was present at and contaminated the insured properties, causing them physical

loss or damage, resulting in business-interruption losses.

                                                5
       “Physical loss or damage” is not defined in the policy. “An insurance policy must

be construed as a whole, and unambiguous language must be given its plain and ordinary

meaning.” Midwest Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wolters, 831 N.W.2d 628, 636 (Minn. 2013)

(quotation omitted).

       Fond du Lac, citing dictionary definitions of the words “physical,” “loss,” and

“damage,” argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “physical loss or

damage” is “a physical change to the property [that] impairs its function or lessens its

value.” Fond du Lac asserts that structural damage to the property is not required and that

the presence of a contaminant that renders the property unusable constitutes “physical loss

or damage.” Fond du Lac also contends that the absence from its all-risk policy of an

exclusion for virus-related losses supports its argument that a virus can cause “physical

loss or damage.” Applying its interpretation of the policy, Fond du Lac argues that,

according to its complaint, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was present at and contaminated its

properties, rendering them unsafe and unusable, and thereby causing physical loss or

damage to the insured properties.

      Fond du Lac relies on three Minnesota cases to support its argument. In Marshall

Produce Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court

concluded that the insured’s fire policies covered losses incurred when the federal

government rejected the canned egg powder manufactured by the insured because smoke

from a nearby fire had entered the insured’s processing plant and contaminated the cans

and the packaging around the cans. 98 N.W.2d 280, 296-97 (Minn. 1959). In Sentinel

Management Co. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., we concluded that the insured owner

                                            6
of apartment buildings had demonstrated coverage for a “direct, physical loss to property”

under its all-risk insurance policy when asbestos contamination impaired or destroyed the

buildings’ function even though the contamination did not cause a “tangible injury to the

physical structure” of the buildings. 563 N.W.2d 296, 300-01 (Minn. App. 1997). And in

General Mills, Inc. v. Gold Medal Insurance Co., we affirmed coverage under the insured’s

all-risk policy for losses due to “direct physical loss or damage to property” when cereal

products manufactured by the insured were deemed adulterated under federal regulations

because oats used in their manufacture had been treated with an unapproved pesticide. 622

N.W.2d 147, 151-52 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 17, 2000, Apr. 17, 2001).

Fond du Lac contends that these cases support its assertion that contamination by

“coronavirus particles” meets the definition of “physical loss or damage.”

          Insurers, on the other hand, argue that “physical loss or damage” unambiguously

requires “actual, tangible harm” to the insured properties and that the SARS-CoV-2 virus

does not cause such harm. They argue that another provision in the policy—the “period of

restoration” provision—confirms that “tangible, physical” harm to the property is required.

That provision limits business-interruption coverage to a period from “the date direct

physical loss occurs and interrupts normal business operations” to “the date that the

damaged property should have been repaired, rebuilt or replaced.” Insurers argue that the

terms “repair,” “rebuild,” and “replace” in the context of the phrase “direct physical loss

or damage” to property demonstrate that the “loss” or “damage” must be “physical” in

nature.

                                             7
       Insurers also cite caselaw from other jurisdictions rejecting claims for coverage for

COVID-19-related business-interruption losses due to alleged physical loss or damage to

property. For example, insurers cite Olmsted Medical Center v. Continental Casualty Co.,

in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying Minnesota

law, affirmed dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim. 65 F.4th 1005, 1009-12 (8th Cir. 2023). The Eighth Circuit

determined that the complaint was insufficient because, even if some forms of

contamination can support a finding of “physical loss,” the insured medical center had not

alleged that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had such an effect on its property. Id. at 1010. In

arriving at that conclusion, the court reasoned that Marshall Produce provided little

guidance because that case addressed policies insuring property “against all loss or damage

by fire” rather than a policy insuring against business-interruption losses caused by “direct

physical loss of or damage to covered property.” Id. at 1010-11 (quotation omitted). And

it decided that General Mills and Sentinel Management were distinguishable because the

pesticide contamination in General Mills and the asbestos contamination in Sentinel

Management were “permanent absent some intervention” and rendered the properties

essentially useless while “a SARS-CoV-2 contamination is surface-level, removed with

relative ease, and will dissipate on its own in a matter of days, if not sooner.” Id. at 1011. 4

4
  Insurers cite other appellate decisions from federal and non-Minnesota jurisdictions
similarly rejecting, in a rule 12 posture, claims for coverage for COVID-19-related
business-interruption losses due to physical loss or damage to property. E.g., Verveine
Corp. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 184 N.E.3d 1266, 1276 (Mass. 2022) (affirming dismissal of
insureds’ complaint because the alleged presence of virus does not constitute loss or
damage to the property); Colectivo Coffee Roasters, Inc. v. Soc’y Ins., 974 N.W.2d 442,

                                               8
       To summarize, Fond du Lac contends that contamination by the SARS-CoV-2 virus

constitutes “physical loss or damage” to property and that the complaint sufficiently alleges

that the virus was present at and contaminated Fond du Lac’s properties. Insurers, on the

other hand, argue that the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot cause “physical loss or damage” to

property and that, even if the virus could cause such loss or damage, the complaint is

insufficient because it fails to allege facts that would show that the virus was present at and

contaminated the properties. Thus, the questions presented are (1) whether contamination

by the SARS-CoV-2 virus states a claim premised on direct physical loss or damage and

(2) whether the complaint read as a whole alleges contamination by the virus. We need not

decide the first question if the answer to the second question is no. We therefore turn to the

complaint and its exhibits to determine whether Fond du Lac alleges that its properties were

contaminated by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Allegations in the Complaint

       Fond du Lac points us to the following three paragraphs in the complaint:

447 (Wis. 2022) (same); Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC, 57 F.4th 131, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2023)
(same); Uncork & Create LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 27 F.4th 926, 933 (4th Cir. 2022)
(same); Circle Block Partners, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 44 F.4th 1014, 1020-21
(7th Cir. 2022) (same); SA Palm Beach, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London,
32 F.4th 1347, 1362 (11th Cir. 2022) (same); see also Sullivan Mgmt., LLC v. Fireman’s
Fund Ins. Co., 879 S.E.2d 742, 745 (S.C. 2022) (ruling, in answer to certified question
from federal district court, that presence of virus on property does not constitute physical
loss or damage to property); Neuro-Commc’n Servs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 219
N.E.3d 907, 915 (Ohio 2022) (same); Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Ins. Co., 521 P.3d
1261, 1270 (Okla. 2022) (ruling that insurers are entitled to summary judgment because
virus did not constitute physical loss or damage to property); Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. County. of Clark, 535 P.3d 254, 264 (Nev. 2023) (same).

                                              9
                     39.    Members of the Band have been exposed to and
              contracted Coronavirus, and on information and belief, have
              then entered onto the premises of some of the Plaintiff’s
              businesses at issue in this Complaint.

                     ....

                     41.    Based on the preceding conditions, and
              confirmed instances of infections near the businesses by
              persons who were likely to visit the businesses (or come into
              contact with persons who visited the businesses) it is likely that
              customers, employees, vendors, or other persons infected with
              or carrying Coronavirus particles entered the businesses, or
              that Coronavirus otherwise infected surfaces, air, or people at
              the businesses.

                     ....

                     56.     The presence of the Coronavirus and the Orders
              prohibited certain physical access to, use of, and operations at
              and by the Plaintiff’s businesses, their employees, and their
              customers. . . . As a result of the presence of the Coronavirus
              and the Orders, physical components of the Plaintiff’s
              businesses became unusable, damaged, and/or lost the ability
              to generate income.

       Based on these paragraphs, we understand Fond du Lac’s theory to be that SARS-

CoV-2 particles likely entered the properties, which would have contaminated the

properties and caused physical loss or damage. See Franklin, 122 N.W.2d at 29 (measuring

sufficiency of complaint with reference to pleader’s theory). For the reasons that follow,

we conclude that the complaint and the exhibits do not sufficiently allege that the virus was

present at and contaminated the properties.

       In paragraph 39, Fond du Lac asserts “on information and belief” that members of

the Band infected with COVID-19 entered some of its insured properties. Even if this

allegation, made “on information and belief,” is supported by sufficient information to

                                              10
meet the notice-pleading standard, the paragraph does not allege that the believed presence

of infected persons on some properties resulted in actual physical contamination of the

properties.

       In paragraph 41, Fond du Lac alleges that coronavirus particles “likely” infected its

insured properties. But alleging that the properties were “likely” contaminated is different

from alleging that contamination actually happened. Fond du Lac argues that alleging the

“likelihood” of contamination is sufficient at the pleading stage. We disagree. To establish

coverage under its theory of “physical loss or damage,” Fond du Lac would have to prove

that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was, in fact, present at and contaminated its properties.

Therefore, to state a claim for coverage under that theory, Fond du Lac has to allege that

the virus was present at and contaminated the properties.

       Finally, while in paragraph 56 Fond du Lac alleges that the presence of the

coronavirus and state and Band orders impaired Fond du Lac’s businesses, in context those

allegations refer to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting government orders

generally—not to the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the insured properties.

       Moreover, Fond du Lac’s responses to the claims adjuster when it first sought

business-interruption coverage, which are incorporated as exhibits into the complaint,

demonstrate that Fond du Lac was not aware of any presence of or contamination by the

SARS-CoV-2 virus at its properties before its casinos reopened.

              Q: Have any insured location(s) been tested for the presence
              of the virus that causes COVID-19?
              A: No. There was no evidence of any facility contamination
              by the SARS-CoV-2, nor was the Band aware of a readily

                                            11
               available commercial test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in
               the environment or on environmental surfaces.
               ....
               Q: Of any locations referenced with reported COVID-19
               cases, without specifically identifying the person affected, . . .
               [w]as there a positive COVID-19 test that confirmed the
               disease?
               A: 14 employees were positive for COVID-19 at BBCR[5];
               there was a lesser number at Fond-du-Luth. However, all of
               these positive results came after BBCR and Fond-du-Luth
               reopened in June; the first reported COVID-19 infection by an
               employee was reported to have occurred on October 7, 2020.

And Fond du Lac alleges in paragraph 42 of the complaint that the properties were required

to close on March 18, 2020, “under the Orders by recognized civil authorities and the

ongoing and worsening pandemic”—not because the SARS-CoV-2 virus was present at

and contaminated the properties.

         Considering the complaint and the attached exhibits as a whole, we conclude that

Fond du Lac has not pleaded facts sufficient to show actual contamination of its insured

properties causing physical loss or damage to property. We therefore need not decide

whether, under the policy, the SARS-CoV-2 virus could ever cause “physical loss or

damage” to property as required to trigger business-interruption coverage. The district

court did not err by dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can

be granted.

         Affirmed.

5
    “BBCR” refers to Black Bear Casino Resort.

                                              12