Mark Rossi v. Arch Insurance Company, 60 F.4th 1189

Plaintiffs (three skiers) bought Ikon season ski passes for 2019–20 and optional Ski Pass Preserver insurance from Arch. The policy reimbursed pro rata cost of the pass if the insured had to cancel for enumerated "Unforeseen reasons," including being "quarantined" (undefined) under "Other Covered Events."
In March 2020 state and local COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and resort closures curtailed the ski season; plaintiffs sought reimbursement claiming those orders constituted "quarantines."
Arch denied coverage, treating stay-at-home orders as not falling within the policy's "quarantined" term and posted a blanket denial for similar claims.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated nationwide putative class action alleging breach of contract, declaratory relief, and bad-faith claims. Arch moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The district court denied the jurisdictional challenge but dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), holding the policy unambiguous: "quarantined" meant compulsory isolation and the orders did not meet that standard. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Judge Grasz concurred, agreeing with the dismissal but would have affirmed on the alternative ground that a Travel Supplier exclusion bars recovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "quarantined" is ambiguous in the policy	"Quarantined" can reasonably mean broad restraints (e.g., stay-at-home orders) and is therefore ambiguous	Ordinary meaning is compulsory isolation; unambiguous as used in the policy	Term is unambiguous: ordinary meaning is compulsory/isolation; policy enforced as written
Whether COVID stay-at-home orders and resort closures constituted being "quarantined" under the policy	Government orders and resort closures were quarantines that prevented use of passes	Orders merely limited travel/activities and did not compel isolation of insureds	Plaintiffs failed to allege forced/compulsory isolation; orders did not satisfy the policy's "quarantined" meaning
Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged a covered loss to survive 12(b)(6)	Allegations that orders prevented use of passes suffice to show interruption	Complaint lacks factual allegations of compelled isolation required by policy	Complaint fails to plausibly allege a covered event or loss; dismissal with prejudice affirmed
Applicability of the Travel Supplier exclusion (concurrence)	Exclusion ambiguous and should not foreclose coverage	Resort's failure to supply services falls squarely within the exclusion	Majority did not rely on exclusion; concurrence would affirm on that alternative ground but notes the exclusion might itself be ambiguous

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes pleading plausibility standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
Simes v. Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm’n, 734 F.3d 830 (standard of review on 12(b)(6))
Bauer v. AGA Serv. Co., 25 F.4th 587 (apply state substantive law to interpret insurance policies)
Schmitz v. Great Am. Assurance Co., 337 S.W.3d 700 (consult dictionaries for undefined policy terms)
Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (insurance policy must be read as a whole)
Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (ambiguities in insurance policies resolved in favor of the insured)