Ruling on Field Stands: Philadelphia Eagles Denied Covid-19 Insurance Claim

The Philadelphia Eagles football team has lost its bid for federal court reconsideration of the dismissal of the team’s claim for insurance coverage for COVID-19 losses.

The Eagles tossed a red flag in November after the federal district for Eastern Pennsylvania in October found its Covid-19 insurance claim against FM Global Insurance (and a case by the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team) out of bounds because the teams could not prove their properties sustained any physical loss or damage.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in October had kicked the Eagles case back to the federal court with its ruling that CNA Insurance policyholder dentist Timothy A. Ungarean was “not entitled to insurance coverage under the plain and unambiguous language of the CNA Policy because his business properties covered thereunder did not sustain any physical loss or damage.”

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Yanks Dentist’s COVID Insurance Coverage Win

After that state high court ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson dismissed the Covid-19 insurance claims by the Eagles and 76ers. The federal court said it followed the state’s high court reasoning in Ungarean in its dismissals of what the court saw as similar cases.

The Eagles organization wasted no time in asking the federal court for a review of that dismissal, insisting that its case of business losses is unlike any other and deserved to be heard beyond a quick dismissal. The team asserted that the state high court ruling in Ungarean should not apply to its case because the language in its FM Global policy is different and less restrictive than the language in the CNA policy that the state’s high court analyzed.

Judge Tosses Philadelphia Eagles and 76ers Covid Loss Cases

Philadelphia Eagles Seek to Extend Covid-19 Business Insurance Bid Into Overtime

The Eagles also argued that its case is supported by a 2023 Third Circuit opinion (Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC) where premises were nearly eliminated or rendered useless by asbestos.

FM Global opposed the reconsideration, arguing that Ungarean and Wilson already called the play and since there was no physical alteration or near-dispossession, there is “no coverage touchdown.” FM maintained that the Eagles failed to show any justification for reconsideration.

In a December 13 memorandum denying the Eagles’ bid for reconsideration, the court agreed with FM Global that reconsideration is not warranted because the Eagles’ bid was “not based on any change in the law, new evidence, or clear error that justifies reconsideration.”

Judge Baylson noted that the standard of physical loss or damage is required under the Third Circuit’s Wilson ruling as well as under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ungarean ruling.

“In sum, the Eagles have failed to demonstrate physical alteration which would trigger coverage for physical loss or damage under Pennsylvania law,” the judge wrote.