Facts

In 1989, Gordon Osborn, an oral surgeon, purchased an individual disability insurance and business overhead expense policy from The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. In 2019, Dr. Osborn was seen by an allergist/immunologist, Dr. Karchu, who noted that Dr. Osborn's allergic rhinitis, asthma, and hypogammaglobulinemia were under control, and to continue taking his medications. In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Karchu, told Dr. Osborn that those with his condition were considered "high risk," and to limit his exposure to sick individuals.

In March 2020, Dr. Osborn stopped working because of the risk of exposure. His employees continued to work remotely and tried to purchase protective personal equipment (PPE). By May 2020, Dr. Osborn began discussing closing his office given the PPE shortage and recommended guidelines for dental practices. In June 2020, Dr. Osborn permanently closed his practice, having been unable to determine when PPE would become available. The following month, he moved to Colorado, never renewing his dental license to practice in that state. Though his former office finally received the PPE equipment in July or August, there was no discussion of reopening the office. In August 2020, Dr. Osborn suffered a pulmonary embolism determined to be disabling for 27 days. When he submitted a claim under his insurance policy, claiming disability as of March 2020, after investigating his claim, the insurance company denied his claim the following year. Dr. Osborn then filed a complaint for, among others, breach of contract.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged he was entitled to his policy benefits given that due to his high-risk health status, he was unable to work because of the risk of contracting COVID-19 and inability to obtain PPE equipment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that Plaintiff's decision to close his practice considering the pandemic and supply chain issues, while understandable, was not caused by an injury or sickness, and therefore he was not entitled to benefits under the terms of his disability policy. Defendant also argued that, because Plaintiff's business was no longer in operation, he was not entitled to benefits under the terms of his business overhead policy.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.