In this case, Essentia Health sought insurance coverage under a “Premises Pollution Liability Portfolio Policy” for loss of revenue as fallout from Governor Walz’ Executive Order suspending elective medical procedures due to COVID-19. The U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota in Essential Health v ACE American Insurance Company, No. 21-cv-207 (ECT/LIB) determined that the term “pollution condition” when read in conjunction with other provisions of the policy, cannot reasonably be understood to include a virus. The Court noted that policies of this ilk “were designed to fill gaps in coverage created by pollution exclusions in commercial property and liability insurance policies” but that Essentia’s reading of “pollution condition” would make the Healthcare Amendatory Endorsement superfluous. Further, the reasonable expectations doctrine did not apply because the language of the policy merely provided context for understanding the plain meaning of “pollution condition” and that Essentia, as a sophisticated business entity, considered and bargained for a specific, more limited form of coverage. Accordingly, the insurer prevailed and the Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. Ace American counsel included McCollum Crowley attorneys Cheryl Hood Langel and Alexandra Zabinski.