Background:

• The appellants, whose businesses were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, held business interruption insurance policies covering losses from "physical loss or damage."
• Their claims for pandemic-related losses were denied by the insurers.

Trial Court Decision:

• Key Questions:
  1. Does the presence of SARS-CoV-2 cause "physical loss or damage"?
  2. Do civil authority orders related to SARS-CoV-2 cause "physical loss or damage"?
  3. Are there exclusions in the policies that would negate coverage?
• Answers:
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Not addressed due to the negative answers to the first two questions.

Appeal:

• Appellants' Claims:
  1. The trial judge erred in ruling that the virus's presence was not "physical damage."
  2. The judge erred in ruling that "loss of use" due to the virus was not "physical loss."
• Appeal Court Decision: The appeal was dismissed, agreeing with the trial judge's thorough reasoning.

Costs:

• Respondents awarded $135,000 in costs.

Conclusion:

• The court ruled that standard business interruption policies do not cover COVID-19-related losses unless explicitly stated, as neither the virus’s presence nor civil authority orders constitute "physical loss or damage."