SANTO’S ITALIAN CAFÉ LLC v. ACUITY INSURANCE COMPANY - Articles

All Content

SANTO’S ITALIAN CAFÉ LLC v. ACUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 22, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Colin P. Sammon, SAMMON LAW, LLC, Medina, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: John R. Chlysta, HANNA, CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP, Akron, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: John N. Ellison, REED SMITH LLP, New York, New York, Stephen E. Goldman, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Amici Curiae.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Colin P. Sammon, SAMMON LAW, LLC, Medina, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: John R. Chlysta, Kenneth A. Calderone, HANNA, CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP, Akron, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: John N. Ellison, REED SMITH LLP, New York, New York, Christopher E. Kozak, PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, Wystan M. Ackerman, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, Gabriel K. Gillett, JENNER & BLOCK, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Timothy J. Fitzgerald, KOEHLER FITZGERALD LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Santosuossos is an Italian restaurant in Medina, Ohio. The COVID-19 pandemic was not good for the restaurant’s business or for that matter most hospitality services. First came an understandable reluctance by patrons to enter enclosed public spaces such as restaurants. Then came the State of Ohio’s order to suspend all in-person dining operations at restaurants to slow the spread of the virus. Through it all, Santosuossos lost considerable revenue and understandably blamed the pandemic and shut-down order for its economic woes. The owner of the restaurant sued its insurer, Acuity Insurance Company, for coverage under its commercial property insurance policy, which covers business interruption “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property.” R.7-7 at 29. The district court granted Acuity’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that the policy did not cover this kind of peril. We agree and affirm.

Attachments: