TIKI’S GRILL & BAR, LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

Listen to the audio

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. :
     Richard B. Miller and Ashley R. Shibuya of Tom Petrus & Miller, LLLC

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant TIKI’S GIRLL & BAR, LLC:
     James J. Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group

NOTE:     Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Todd W. Eddins, filed 02/27/26.

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Steven R. Nichols, in place of Eddins, J., recused and Circuit Judge Karin L. Holma, due to a vacancy, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/31/26.

NOTE:     Previous Memo of Setting is amended for the purpose of adding:
     -Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 05/28/26 to 06/02/26 at 10:00 AM, filed 05/15/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nichols, in place of Eddins, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Holma, assigned by reason of vacancy.

This appeal involves a commercial insurance coverage dispute between Respondent/Plaintiff Tiki’s Grill & Bar, LLC (Tiki’s) and Petitioner/Defendant DTRIC Insurance Company, Limited (DTRIC).  Tiki’s operates a restaurant and bar located in the Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel (Hotel).

From March 25, 2020 until July 31, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the owner of the Hotel nailed wooden boards across the Hotel’s entrances. 

Tiki’s, unable to operate its restaurant, submitted a business interruption claim to DTRIC, which DTRIC denied.  Tiki’s filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), seeking declaratory judgment that DTRIC was obligated to cover Tiki’s claim.  DTRIC moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Tiki’s claim was not covered because Tiki’s did not suffer a direct physical loss or damage to its property and alternatively that a virus exclusion applied.  The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for DTRIC.  On appeal, the ICA vacated the Circuit Court’s summary judgment ruling and remanded the case to the Circuit Court.

On certiorari, DTRIC presents three questions:

     A. Whether the ICA gravely erred by holding that a landlord’s decision to physically block a commercial tenant’s access to its business premises by boarding up the building’s entrances constitutes “direct physical loss or damage” under a commercial property insurance policy.

     B. Whether the ICA gravely erred by failing to enforce the subject insurance policy’s exclusion for loss “caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

     C. Whether the ICA gravely erred by failing to enforce the subject insurance policy’s exclusion for loss “caused by or resulting from . . . [d]elay, loss of use or loss of market.”