Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

North Carolina has once again favored policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A recent decision from the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham Wood Fired Pizza Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., reinforces the North State Deli decision and suggests that a failure to provide coverage for COVID-19 business interruption claims may constitute bad faith.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently handed policyholders an important win in Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., reversing a trial court ruling that had capped coverage under a communicable disease endorsement at the $1 million per occurrence limit. Relying on the express language of the communicable disease coverage at issue, the appellate court held that government shutdown orders—not the COVID-19 pandemic itself—constituted the operative “occurrences” under Life Time’s policy. By interpreting the cause of loss in this way, the court expanded Life Time’s recovery from a single $1 million limit to 29 separate limits, one for each jurisdiction that independently ordered closure of Life Time’s business locations.

In the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (No. 24-1432), decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 25, 2025, the court addressed whether an employer had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate an employee who refused to provide medical documentation supporting her request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.

On December 13, 2024, the North Carolina Supreme Court refused to follow the herd of poorly and in many cases, erroneously-reasoned decisions and applied settled rules of insurance policy interpretation to find Cincinnati Insurance Company owes coverage to a group of restaurants suffering business interruption losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.  While the North Carolina Court’s decision in North State Deli, LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., may come too late for many, the decision nevertheless offers reassurance that some courts remain willing to stand firm on fundamental guiding principles.