The Philadelphia Eagles’ attempt to receive insurance coverage for the loss of use of Lincoln Financial Field during the COVID-19 pandemic was rejected for a second time by a Pennsylvania court, after a federal judge concluded their motion for reconsideration presented the same arguments as a previously dismissed complaint.
In a Friday opinion, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Eagles’ motion for reconsideration regarding their dispute with their insurance provider, Factory Mutual Insurance Co. The court concluded that its dismissal of the suit in October didn’t warrant reconsideration, finding the motion wasn’t based on any change in the law, new evidence or clear error justifying reconsideration.
The Eagles had filed the lawsuit after Factory Mutual denied their attempts to recoup losses they suffered after having to modify the operation of their insured properties during the pandemic, including Lincoln Financial Field. The court previously dismissed the suit after concluding that the Eagles’ claims didn’t fall under the policy because there was no physical damage or alteration to the properties.
In Philadelphia Eagles v. Factory Mutual Insurance, the Eagles sought declaratory judgments for the alleged losses during the shutdown. Factory Mutual argued that the policy requires physical damage to the property to obtain coverage. In its prior decision, the court cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision this year in Ungarean v. CAN & Valley Forge Ins., and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s 2023 decision in Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. Both cases held that coverage for direct physical loss of property is limited to physical alteration or damage to the property.
While the Eagles argued these cases didn’t govern their suit, Factory Mutual claimed the court correctly determined the case warranted dismissal under recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. Baylson agreed with Factory Mutual.
According to the Eagles, Ungarean didn’t govern the case because the policy language in Ungarean is different and more specific than the policy language in the insurance policy at issue, dubbed the FM policy. The Eagles also argued that Third Circuit precedent didn’t support dismissing the complaint. The court disagreed, concluding that the policy’s language is nearly identical to the language used in the two cases and requires physical alteration to the insured properties to trigger physical loss or damage coverage.
“[T]he Ungarean and Wilson courts’ analyses of restoration language was merely supplemental to their conclusions reached on the basis of the operative language related to physical loss or damage,” Baylson said. “The Eagles’ argument that Ungarean and Wilson do not govern the FM policy because of the absence of non-dispositive restoration language is like saying two recipes are not the same because one includes a garnish while the other does not—the main ingredients are identical.”
The court further concluded that the Eagles failed to demonstrate physical alteration under state law, saying cancellations or low attendance at games had nothing to do with the physical attributes of the stadium itself.
“The Eagles argue its losses are tied to the physical condition of the Linc because ‘a physical condition—the actual or threatened presence of COVID-19 at its stadium—nearly eliminated or destroyed the stadium’s core function,’ and that COVID-19 was present on the surfaces and in the air of the properties in a way that did or would have physically altered the airspace within its premises and its surfaces,” Baylson said. “But this does not plausibly plead that its losses are tied to ‘physical attributes’ of the properties through the presence of COVID-19.”
The Eagles’ attorney, Charles A. Fitzpatrick IV of Blank Rome in Philadelphia, declined to comment. Factory Mutal’s attorney, Richard D. Gable Jr. of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig in Philadelphia, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
