Page 34 - CLT062121

34 ■ JUNE 21, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT court excluded any evidence from the search
of defendant’s phone.

CRIMINAL LAW • INSURANCE LAW • REGULATION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW • EVIDENCE
Insurance Company Gets COVID-19
Court Granted Defendant’s Motion to Business Losses Case Dismissed
Suppress Search of Cell Phone CASE: SA Hospitality Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
CASE: United States v. Tisdol DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-1033
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut COURT OPINION BY: Bryant
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cr-264 DATE: June 03, 2021 • PAGES: 22
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton An insurance company, that was sued by an
DATE: June 09, 2021 • PAGES: 14 insured for insurance coverage related to loss
Defendant was shot outside his grandmother’s business income for COVID-19, was able to get
house and was taken to the hospital on Sep- the case dismissed by showing no direct physical
tember 9, 2020. While hospitalized, defen- loss or direct physical damage to the property.
dant was arrested on a pending state warrant In March 2020, a federal national state of emer-
for unrelated charges. Detectives searched the gency was issued in response to the COVID-19
scene where defendant was shot and recovered pandemic, and soon thereafter, governmental
two shell casings and a firearm with an oblit- entities issued civil authority orders directing
erated serial number. Inside the house where non-essential businesses to suspend or curtail
defendant had collapsed, they located an operations. The plaintiff, SA Hospitality, were
iPhone. They swabbed the firearm for DNA owners of restaurants in New York that were
and on November 4, 2020, defendant’s DNA impacted by the shutdown. However, SA Hos-
came back as a very strong match for the pitality also had a commercial property insur-
DNA found on the gun. A detective became ance policy through defendant Hartford Fire,
aware of the results on December 4, 2020, and which included business interruption coverage
sought a federal search warrant for the iPhone for lost profits. In April 2020, Hartford Fire
on December 8. Defendant moved to suppress denied the claim for indemnification because
all evidence from the iPhone, arguing that the there was no physical loss as loss from bacteria
device was unlawfully seized, the Govern- and virus was excluded. The court agreed and
ment impermissibly delayed requesting a war- dismissed with prejudice.
rant, and the warrant was unconstitutionally
broad. The court granted defendant’s mo- INSURANCE LITIGATION
tion. The court first held that because no one
claimed a subjective or objective expectation
of privacy in the unclaimed iPhone left at the Court Granted in Part Plaintiffs’
crime scene, police acted reasonably in taking Motions to Strike Defendant’s
the phone and the initial seizure was consti- Affirmative Defenses in Insurance
tutional. However, the court then found that
the delay in seeking the search warrant for the Litigation
phone was unreasonable. There were 34 days CASE: Haxhe Properties, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
that passed between the positive DNA results COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
that were released on November 4 and when DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-01594
the detective sought the search warrant on De- COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
cember 8. The court noted that the Govern- DATE: June 04, 2021 • PAGES: 9
ment acknowledged there was no explanation Plaintiffs owned a restaurant and obtained
for the delay; this disregarded the temporal an insurance policy from defendant to pro-
limitations of the Fourth Amendment’s rea- tect against loss or damages. While the policy
sonableness requirements. Having found that was in effect, the restaurant suffered damages
the delay violated defendant’s Fourth Amend- from a fire. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant
ment rights, and that the good faith exception has not compensated plaintiffs for the losses
to the exclusionary rule did not apply, the and damages covered under the policy and
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune