Metallica was supposed to perform a six-date tour of South America in April of 2020. Of course, just prior to the tour’s scheduled launch, the world essentially shut down due to the pandemic, and Metallica had no choice but to postpone the dates.
Metallica filed a complaint against Lloyd’s Of London, an insurance company, for not covering their losses due to the canceled dates. In their complaint, Metallica allege their standard “cancellation, abandonment and non-appearance insurance” policy with Lloyds of London was denied by the insurer, which cited a communicable disease exclusion.
Metallica’s lawsuit called the move “an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of the policy” and alleged breach of contract. Metallica argued that Lloyd’s “cannot conclusively say that the Pandemic is the efficient proximate cause of the cancellations because there are other adequately alleged causes that are covered under the Policy.”
In a Nov. 30 decision, Judge Holly J. Fuije disagreed with Metallica’s arguments. The judge wrote: “The travel restrictions which caused the concert cancellations were a direct response to the burgeoning COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence … demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic spurred the travel restrictions to South America and restrictions on public gatherings. The COVID-19 pandemic was therefore the efficient proximate cause of the concerts’ cancellations.”
Metallica sought unspecified compensatory damages as well as a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties, but the judge ruled Lloyds Of London doesn’t have to cover Metallica for financial losses due to the shows being canceled.
