18
damage,’” but found that “the common meaning of the words and the policies as a whole,
indicate that it contemplates an actual change in insured property . . . causing it to become
unsatisfactory for future use or requiring that repairs be made to make it so.” 581 S.E.2d at
319 (citing Trinity Indus. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 916 F.2d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 1990), Wolstein
v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 985 P.2d 400 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999), and North American Shipbldg., Inc. v.
Southern Marine & Aviation Underwriting, Inc., 930 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex. App. 1996)).
Numerous courts have had the opportunity to directly address the meaning of identical
“direct physical loss or damage” language in commercial property insurance policies in the
context of a plaintiff claiming loss of use due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and stay at home
orders. Those courts have overwhelming held that the phrase requires tangible, physical losses
to property, or, at the very least, permanent dispossession of the property rendered unfit or
uninhabitable by physical forces, rejecting plaintiffs’ claims for coverage in the context of
COVID-19 through the application of the same basic principles of contract law that this Court
must apply under Maryland law. See, e.g., Bluegrass Oral Health Ctr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
1:20-CV-00120-GNS, 2021 WL 1069038, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 18, 2021) (finding that “the
great weight of decisions recently considering” the issue of the meaning of “direct physical
loss or damage” in “the midst of the current pandemic have reached the same conclusion”
that the phrase requires some physical damage, rather than mere loss of use).
6
6
The court in Bluegrass Oral Health cited to numerous opinions of other courts. See 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of
Connecticut, 483 F. Supp. 3d 828, 836 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 5:20-CV-461-DAE,
2020 WL 4724305, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2020); Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., No. 2020 CA 002424 B, 2020 WL
4589206, at *2 (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2020); Turek Enters., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 484 F. Supp. 3d 492, 500
(E.D. Mich. 2020) (citing Merriam Webster's definition of “loss” to reject the interpretation of loss as, inter alia, loss of
use); Kirsch v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-11930, 2020 WL 7338570, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 2020) (same); Fam. Tacos,
LLC v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., No. 5:20-CV-01922, 2021 WL 615307, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2021) (same); Ceres Enters.,
LLC v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 1:20-CV-1925, 2021 WL 634982, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2021) (same); Dakota Girls, LLC
v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., No. 2:20-CV-2035, 2021 WL 858489, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021) (same).