Welcome to the ARIA 2021 Annual Meeting Agenda App. You are seeing this in simple view. Click on any session to see Presenters, Discussants and a Session Description. Click on Presenters to find a single presenter and their sessions. If you find an error, please email gphillips@aria.org. Registrants have been added and will continue to be updated until 7/29/21 when registration closes. Zoom links will be shared directly with all participants two days prior to the conference. Please make notifications@sched.com a "safe sender" in your email system. We will be sending messages throughout the conference through this medium.
Elizabeth Ragland, University of Louisiana at Monroe; Allison Jarrell, University of Louisiana at Monroe; Deborah Golemon, University of Louisiana at Monroe
Judicial opinions addressing current insurance policy disputes help undergraduate risk management and insurance students better understand the distinct characteristics of insurance contracts. The opinion in North State Deli v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. 20-CVS- 02569 (N.C. Sup.Ct. Oct. 9, 2020) addresses business income losses during the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrates how courts interpret insurance policies. The 2020 government- mandated COVID-19 shutdowns has had an unprecedented impact on businesses, and thousands of businesses have filed business interruption claims under their commercial property insurance policies to recover business income losses. Insurers have denied the majority of these claims, finding that the insureds had not lost business income due to the requisite “direct physical loss” to property. These denials have led to more than 1,700 lawsuits. Although the majority of courts have agreed with insurers’ interpretation of policy language, a few courts, including the court in North State Deli, have found that the business interruption “direct physical loss” policy language is ambiguous and have ruled in favor of insureds. The North State Deli opinion is a valuable teaching tool, because it addresses a current policy dispute and demonstrates how a court interprets policy terms. It illustrates how a court determines if a policy term is ambiguous and how a finding of ambiguity results in the court’s interpreting the contract in the light most favorable to insureds. This presentation will review the North State Deli case, including the policy language, the parties’ arguments, and the court’s analysis, as well as the teaching applications of the case in undergraduate risk management and insurance courses.
