During the pandemic, many businesses felt the impact of government regulations. With regulations like curfews, mask mandates, and changing capacity limits, businesses have experienced upheaval throughout the pandemic. Legal ramifications for such situations are still evolving. In New Jersey, one restaurant argued that business revenue lost due to a takeout/delivery-only requirement was covered by its insurance policy.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, restauranteurs are facing a litany of issues. With changing governmental restrictions, restaurants have had to adapt more than most businesses. Some restauranteurs have taken to the courts to try and recoup losses. In a recent Colorado case, the court examined loss coverage stemming from the pandemic.
A Florida jury awarded $48,257,922 to a tenant who lived in an apartment with “toxic” mold for approximately one and a half years. This verdict included $35 million for past and future pain and suffering and $10 million for future medical costs! While the defendants were not represented at trial, the award is a shot across the bow at what Nuclear Verdicts™ may look like post-pandemic.
On August 27th, the New York State Bar Association’s Emergency Task Force on Mandatory Vaccination and Safeguarding the Public’s Health (“Task Force”) released a report detailing its discussions on the COVID-19 vaccine. Among its many recommendations, the Task Force urged lawyers, employers, and their employees to get vaccinated, as well as teachers, students (when approved for their age group), and university students, faculty, and staff. In addition, the Task Force recommended vaccine access be provided in correctional facilities and in immigration detention facilities.
In our April Newsletter, Tyson & Mendes reported a California federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the wife of a construction worker. Plaintiff claimed her husband contracted COVID-19 at work and brought the virus home infecting her as well. Following the dismissal, the district court judge gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. At a hearing on May 7, 2021, the court upheld the dismissal without further leave to amend. As of this date, it is unknown whether plaintiff will appeal.