PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Business Interruption / New Jersey Proposes Bill That May Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

New Jersey Proposes Bill That May Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

March 23, 2020 by Christina Gallo

coronavirus, covid-19, property

As the United States faces a surge in confirmed cases of COVID-19, New Jersey is proposing a bill that would require property insurers that cover risks in New Jersey to pay for business interruption losses due to the disease, despite their policies expressly excluding coverage for losses due to viruses or bacteria. The law, which would take effect immediately and be retroactive to March 9, 2020, is aimed at reducing the financial impact of the coronavirus on New Jersey’s businesses with less than 100 full-time employees.

The proposed law — Assembly Bill 3844 — would require every policy of insurance insuring against loss or damage to property, including the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption, to be construed to include coverage for business interruption due to the global coronavirus pandemic. The law would require indemnification of insureds, subject to the policy limits, for any loss of business or business interruption for the duration of the state of emergency that New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy declared on March 9, 2020.

The law would apply to policies in effect in New Jersey on March 9, 2020, issued to insureds with less than 100 “eligible employees” in New Jersey, which is defined as “a full-time employee who works a normal work week of 25 or more hours.”

An insurer that indemnifies an insured for a loss presented under the law may apply to the commissioner of banking and insurance for relief and reimbursement by the commissioner for the amounts paid. In turn, these costs will be passed on by the commissioner to insurers operating in New Jersey (other than life and health insurers) through the established annual special purpose apportionment distributed among these insurers and through the commissioner’s authority under the law to collect from these insurers additional monies necessary to recover amounts it pays for COVID-19 claims.

If passed, the proposed law would essentially rewrite the terms of those implicated property policies that expressly exclude coverage for losses due to viruses or bacteria. As such, the law will likely be subject to constitutional challenges. Until such constitutional challenges are resolved, however, given the unknown length of the state of emergency, insurers will face uncertainty as to their potential exposure for business interruption claims under the law. In addition, other states may follow New Jersey’s lead, creating additional uncertainty and potential exposure for risks insurers explicitly did not contract to cover.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Ransomware Attack Replacement Costs Are Covered “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Under Standard Business Owner’s Policy, According to Maryland Federal Court

Next Article »

Business Interrupted: Policyholders Seek to Avoid the “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Requirement for Business Interruption Insurance in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic

About Christina Gallo

Christina Gallo is an associate at Carlton Fields in New York. Connect with Christina on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. New York Among the Latest States to Propose Legislation That Would Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
  2. A New Bad Faith Trend Emerges in COVID-19 Business Interruption Litigation
  3. Business Interrupted: Policyholders Seek to Avoid the “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Requirement for Business Interruption Insurance in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing