23-2832 Ralph Lauren Corporation v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY On Appeal from the United States District Court…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
Nos. 21-2008, 23-2832
_____________
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2:20-cv-10167)
District Judge: Hon. Susan D. Wigenton
_____________
No. 22-2474
_____________
TUMI, INC.; SAMSONITE LLC; DELILAH EUROPE INVESTMENTS SARL,
Appellants
v.
FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02752)
District Judge: Hon. Kevin McNulty
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 14, 2025
_____________

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 9, 2025)
_____________
OPINION*
_____________
MATEY, Circuit Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, Ralph Lauren Corporation, Tumi, Inc., Samsonite
LLC, and Delilah Europe Investments Sarl (collectively Plaintiffs) seek coverage under
insurance policies for damages resulting from their response to COVID-19. The District
Courts granted Factory Mutual Insurance Company’s cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaints, decisions we will affirm.
I.
Plaintiffs purchased insurance policies from Factory Mutual in 2019, covering
“ALL RISKS OF PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE.” RL App. 65; Sam. App. 61.1 The
policies excluded coverage for “contamination, and any cost due to contamination
including the inability to use or occupy property or any cost of making property safe or
suitable for use or occupancy,” unless “directly result[ing] from other physical damage
not excluded.” RL App. 87; Sam. App. 78. Following the widespread business closures
ordered by public health officials after the identification of COVID-19, Plaintiffs filed
*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.
1 RL App. refers to the appendix filed in Appellate Nos. 21-2008 and 23-2832.
Sam. App. refers to the same in Appellate No. 22-2474.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
claims under their insurance policies for the costs of compliance. Factory Mutual denied
their claims, and this litigation followed.2
II.
Under New Jersey law (which all the parties agree applies here), insurance
policies that cover “physical loss or damage” do not reach financial losses imposed by
COVID-19 mandates. Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC, 57 F.4th 131, 147 (3d Cir. 2023); AC
Ocean Walk, LLC v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins., 307 A.3d 1174, 1187 (N.J. 2024).3 As
the New Jersey Supreme Court explained, a plaintiff that alleges “it sustained a loss of
business during the COVID-19 government-mandated suspension of business operations”
fails to allege any physical loss or damage because the “properties were ‘intact and
functional’ and were ‘not destroyed in whole or in part.’” AC Ocean Walk, 307 A.3d at
2 The District Courts had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. Fed Cetera, LLC v. Nat’l
Credit Servs., Inc., 938 F.3d 466, 469 n.7 (3d Cir. 2019). Section 1291 also provides us
jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order denying Ralph Lauren’s Rule 62.1
motion because it is a postjudgment order following which the Court had “nothing [left to
do] in the cause save to superintend, ministerially, the execution of the decree.”
Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 24 F.4th 242, 254–55 (3d Cir.
2022) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Isidor Paiewonsky Assocs. v. Sharp Props., Inc., 998
F.2d 145, 150 (3d Cir. 1993)). Having determined that it would not grant the relief Ralph
Lauren seeks were this Court to remand the case, there was nothing more for the District
Court to do but wait until this Court decided this appeal. Thus, the Rule 62.1 order is
final. See MZM Constr. Co. v. N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, 974 F.3d
386, 394–95 (3d Cir. 2020) (asserting jurisdiction over appeals from both an order
enjoining arbitration and a subsequent order denying a Rule 62.1 motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1)).
3 The New Jersey Supreme Court construed synonymous policy terms “‘direct
physical loss’ of or ‘direct physical . . . damage.’” AC Ocean Walk, 307 A.3d at 1178.
The policies here contained nearly identical language. Id. at 1179 (“Each policy defined a
‘Covered Cause of Loss’ to denote ‘[a]ll risks of direct physical loss of or damage from
any cause unless excluded.’”).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
1188 (quoting Wilson, 57 F.4th at 142). That holding binds us. See McKenna v. Pac. Rail
Serv., 32 F.3d 820, 825 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]e are to apply state law as interpreted by the
state’s highest court.”).
Plaintiffs contend that their pleadings contain several references to how
COVID-19 affects the air and surfaces. But these technical or scientific alterations do not
amount to the “destruction of the property or a physical change to the property that
renders it unusable or uninhabitable.” AC Ocean Walk, 307 A.3d at 1185. Plaintiffs argue
that one of Factory Mutual’s internal loss codes supports their argument, but New Jersey
courts may only “look to extrinsic evidence as an aid to interpretation” when “the terms
of the contract are susceptible to at least two reasonable alternative interpretations.”
Chubb Custom Ins. v. Prudential Ins. of Am., 948 A.2d 1285, 1289 (N.J. 2008). These
terms are unambiguous because they “clearly denote[] the destruction of the property or a
physical change to the property that renders it unusable or uninhabitable.” AC Ocean
Walk, 307 A.3d at 1185 (emphasis added). So we will affirm the District Courts’
judgments.4
4 As a result, we will not remand the case to the District Court for additional
discovery.

-- 4 of 4 --