We are open during COVID-19 and available to speak about your case by video conference, over the phone or in person.

Articles Posted in COVID-19 and the law

Does Business Insurance Cover Interruptions Caused by COVID-19? SJC May Decide.

Verveine Corporation operate three restaurants, The Coppa, Toro, and Little Donkey,  located in Boston and Cambridge and share common owners. For many years these businesses were covered by insurance. Like many restaurants, the plaintiff’s businesses were successful until March of 2020 when they suffered losses as a result of the pandemic and government shutdown that rendered their insured properties unusable and inaccessible. Faced with this issue, the plaintiffs submitted insurance claims for loss of business income. However, their request was quickly rejected by a form letter. In June of 2020, the plaintiffs filed suit against Strathmore, alleging breach of contract for its denial of coverage and seeking declaratory judgment for enforcement of the insurance policies in the case of Verveine Corp. v. Strathmore.

The policy provided Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage, which covered, loss of business income due to necessary suspension of business operations during the period of restoration. The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property.  One of the restaurants, the Little Donkey, even contained an “Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria” which states that the policy  will not cover “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

Remote Trial did not Violate Defendant’s Constitutional Rights 

Ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been some discussion as to whether remote trials are in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights. In the recently decided case of Commonwealth v. Curran, the highest court in Massachusetts decided that it does not. 

What happened in the Curran case? 

United States Supreme Court Blocks Vaccine or Test Rule

Over the past few weeks, the Omicron variant of COVID-19 variant has exploded. As a response to the rising cases, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandated that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. This week, the Supreme Court blocked this rule in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

What happened in this case?  

The COVID-19 vaccine is out and many wonder what the legal ramification are; can you be required to take the vaccine.  As everyone is aware, the vaccine was rushed through at a record speed.  Have all the side effects of the vaccine been adequately studied?  We will not know the answer to this question for years.  Some may not want to take a vaccine quickly before it has been fully studied.

The 4th Amendment is the Constitutional provision that most directly impacts our privacy and what control the government has over our body.  I do not believe the State or Government can compel anyone to take the Vaccine and impose criminal or civil penalties; the case law allowing mandatory vaccination must allow for exceptions based on health risks and possible side effects to the person receiving the vaccine. The law could require vaccination as a condition to grant privileges , to attend school, to fly, participate in public events.

What about your job can an employer condition returning to work on vaccination?  

Contact Information