Sandwiched between two policyholder attorneys, I made some points and said some words on the subject of the developing and refined strategies of policyholder attorneys to keep their clients' COVID-19 business interruption lawsuits from being dismissed on pre-answer dispositive motions.
I said when I posted that article to LinkedIn that I'm still trying to get my head around policyholder attorney Chip Merlin's "absurd" argument.
Absurd for policyholder attorneys to allege presence of the virus, or for insurer's to require that policyholders prove it? Listen for yourself and please tell me if you understand Chip's argument.
Then be sure to read my comment to the Claims Journal article.
What do you think? Is alleging presence of the virus on property "the key"? I know of some federal judges who don't think so.