Planet Sub Holdings, Inc. v. State Auto Property & Casualty, 36 F.4th 772

State Auto insured a group of Planet Sub restaurant corporations operating 14 sandwich shops in MO, KS, and OK.
COVID-19 public-health orders in 2020 forced suspension of in-person dining; restaurants submitted claims under a policy covering “direct physical loss of or damage to” property.
State Auto denied the claims; restaurants sued (including a proposed class) and alleged coverage under Business Income/Extra Expense and policy extensions (Food‑Borne Illness and Civil Authority).
The district court granted State Auto’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; restaurants appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, applied Missouri choice‑of‑law rules (and noted outcome is the same under KS/OK), and assessed whether the policy language plausibly alleged a physical loss or damage or triggered the policy extensions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Choice of law	District court erred applying Kansas law rather than applying KS, MO, and OK law	Missouri choice‑of‑law rules govern; no material conflict and outcome is the same under each state	Affirmed; no need to pick among states because result is identical under KS/MO/OK
Meaning of “direct physical loss of or damage to”	Broad reading covers losses from COVID‑19 closures without physical alteration	Requires physicality: physical alteration, contamination, or dispossession to trigger coverage	Held for State Auto; policy requires physicality and restaurants did not plausibly allege it
Food‑Borne Illness extension	Extension covers suspension from civil‑authority orders due to actual/alleged exposure related to COVID‑19	Extension was not properly pleaded or, in any event, requires exposure of the covered premises and causal link to the order	Extension was incorporated into pleadings but requires actual/alleged exposure on the premises and causal nexus; restaurants failed to plausibly allege this
Civil Authority extension	Orders shutting access to premises should trigger coverage	The extension requires a direct physical loss/damage to other property caused by a Covered Cause of Loss	Held for State Auto; Civil Authority clause requires direct physical loss/damage elsewhere and none was alleged

Monday Restaurants v. Intrepid Ins. Co., 32 F.4th 656 (8th Cir. 2022) ("direct physical loss of or damage to" requires physicality)
Oral Surgeons P.C. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2 F.4th 1141 (8th Cir. 2021) (physical alteration/contamination necessary for coverage)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Pentair, Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 400 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2005) (both "loss of" and "damage to" require physicality)
Great Plains Ventures, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 161 F. Supp. 3d 970 (D. Kan. 2016) ("physical alteration" as requirement for physical damage)
Goodwill Indus. of Cent. Okla., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 21 F.4th 704 (10th Cir. 2021) (policy covers losses from physical alteration or tangible dispossession)
Terry Black’s Barbecue, L.L.C. v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 22 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022) (civil‑authority coverage tied to causal relation between exposure on premises and order)
Brown Jug, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 27 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2022) (Civil Authority extension requires direct physical loss or damage)
Viacom, Inc. v. Transit Cas. Co., 138 S.W.3d 723 (Mo. banc 2004) (Missouri rules on choice‑of‑law for insurance contracts)