Mag Mile Law is a Chicago, Illinois litigation firm that represents businesses and property owners in business interruption insurance disputes. If your insurer has denied, delayed, or underpaid a business interruption claim, Mag Mile Law has the legal knowledge and insurance industry experience to challenge the carrier on your behalf.
Business interruption coverage — sometimes called “business income” coverage — is supposed to replace the income your business loses when a covered event forces you to shut down or scale back operations. When insurers refuse to honor that promise, Mag Mile Law steps in. The firm’s attorneys combine litigation experience with property and casualty insurance producer licenses, giving them a working understanding of how carriers evaluate, adjust, and deny these claims from the inside.
Mag Mile Law represents policyholders whose business interruption claims have been denied outright — whether after a fire, a hailstorm, wind damage, or another covered loss. Insurers deny business income claims for many reasons: disputing whether the property sustained “direct physical loss or damage,” arguing that an exclusion applies, or claiming the interruption was caused by something the policy does not cover.
Under Illinois law, insurance policies are interpreted using the plain, ordinary, and popular meaning of their terms, and the policy must be read as a whole. Where a term is open to more than one reasonable reading, courts resolve the ambiguity in favor of the policyholder — not the insurer that wrote the policy. This principle, established in cases like Hobbs v. Hartford Insurance Co., 214 Ill. 2d 11 (2005), and Rich v. Principal Life Insurance Co., 226 Ill. 2d 359 (2007), is central to how Mag Mile Law challenges wrongful denials. Equally important, the insurer carries the burden of proving that any exclusion it relies on actually applies. The policyholder does not have to disprove exclusions — the carrier has to prove them.
Mag Mile Law partner Steven Mikuzis litigated Bradley Hotel Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. in the Seventh Circuit (2021), one of the leading COVID-19 coverage cases in the country. That case involved the firm in the national debate over whether pandemic-related closures constituted covered losses under commercial property policies.
Nationally, 37.4% of homeowner property claims were closed without any payment in 2023, and among the 13 largest insurers, that figure reached 47.5%. Denial is not the exception — it is a routine outcome, and the carriers know that most policyholders never challenge it.
A denial is not the only way an insurer avoids paying what it owes. Mag Mile Law also represents business owners whose claims were nominally approved but paid at a fraction of the actual loss. Insurers underpay business interruption claims by undervaluing lost revenue, applying aggressive depreciation, disputing how long the interruption actually lasted, or refusing to account for seasonal fluctuations in your income.
Illinois law entitles policyholders to the full amount due under the policy, and the primary measure of damages for breach of an insurance contract is the policy proceeds the insurer wrongfully withheld. Beyond that, Illinois permits recovery of consequential damages — including lost profits — when those damages were reasonably foreseeable and within the contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting, or arose out of special circumstances known to the parties. The Illinois Appellate Court confirmed in Mohr v. Dix Mutual County Fire Insurance Co., 143 Ill. App. 3d 989 (4th Dist. 1986), that Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code does not preclude a policyholder’s recovery of consequential damages for breach. Mag Mile Law pursues both the underpaid policy amount and the downstream financial harm the insurer’s conduct caused.
The firm also seeks prejudgment interest at 5% per annum under the Illinois Interest Act (815 ILCS 205/2), which applies to moneys owed under insurance policies as written instruments, plus post-judgment interest at 9% under 735 ILCS 5/2-1303.
One of the most frequently contested elements of a business interruption claim is the “period of restoration” — the window of time during which the insurer is obligated to pay for your lost income. Insurers regularly argue that this period is shorter than what your business actually needed to return to normal operations. They may claim repairs should have been completed faster, that you delayed the process, or that the period ended when the physical damage was repaired, even if your business had not recovered its customer base or revenue.
Mag Mile Law challenges these positions by holding insurers to the plain language of the policy. Under Illinois contract interpretation principles, the policy terms control, and where the insurer’s reading of the period of restoration conflicts with a reasonable alternative interpretation, the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the policyholder. As the Illinois Supreme Court held in McKinney v. Allstate Insurance Co., 188 Ill. 2d 493 (1999), courts will not strain to find ambiguity where none exists, and only genuinely reasonable alternative interpretations qualify.
When an insurer’s conduct in handling a business interruption claim goes beyond a simple disagreement and becomes vexatious and unreasonable, Mag Mile Law pursues penalties under Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155). Section 155 allows the court to award reasonable attorney fees, litigation costs, and a statutory penalty of up to 60% of the amount recovered or $60,000, whichever applies.
Courts evaluate bad faith under a totality-of-the-circumstances standard. The factors include the insurer’s attitude, the adequacy of its investigation, whether the policyholder was forced to file suit, and whether the policyholder was deprived of the use of property. In Millers Mutual Insurance Association v. House, 286 Ill. App. 3d 378 (5th Dist. 1997), the court found that an insurer’s refusal to pay even the undisputed portion of a property claim — forcing the policyholder to litigate for money the carrier already knew it owed — was vexatious and unreasonable.
Illinois also regulates claim handling through 215 ILCS 5/154.6 and the Illinois Administrative Code. Under 50 Ill. Admin. Code § 919.40, insurers must respond to communications within 15 working days and conduct a prompt investigation within 21 working days of being notified of a loss. Under § 919.50, a written denial must be issued within 30 days after the investigation is complete, and it must clearly identify the policy provision the denial is based on. While these regulations do not give policyholders a direct right to sue — as established in Purlee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 260 Ill. App. 3d 11 (5th Dist. 1994) — violations serve as evidence of vexatious conduct in a Section 155 proceeding. Mag Mile Law uses these regulatory standards to build the record of insurer misconduct.
In Illinois, 2,951 homeowners insurance complaints were filed with the Illinois Department of Insurance in 2024, a 21.64% increase from the prior year. Nationally, claim handling accounted for 65.2% of all insurance complaints. These numbers reflect what Mag Mile Law sees in practice: insurers routinely fall short of their obligations.
Business interruption claims frequently involve causation disputes — arguments over what caused the loss and whether the cause is covered. Insurers commonly deny claims by attributing the interruption to an excluded cause (such as pre-existing conditions, wear and tear, or a non-covered peril) rather than the covered event that actually forced the business to close.
Illinois follows the efficient proximate cause doctrine as its default causation rule: when a loss results from a combination of a covered and an excluded peril, coverage exists if the covered risk was the predominant cause that set the chain of events in motion. However, many commercial policies now include anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clauses that attempt to override this default. Illinois appellate courts have upheld ACC clauses — Bozek v. Erie Insurance Group, 2015 IL App (2d) 150155 (2d Dist. 2015), is the leading case — but the Illinois Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling, and Mag Mile Law is prepared to challenge these provisions where the facts support it.
Under the standard burden-shifting framework, the policyholder first proves the loss falls within coverage. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove an exclusion applies. If the exclusion contains an exception, the burden shifts back to the policyholder to prove the exception. Mag Mile Law works with forensic accountants, engineers, and other experts to isolate the covered cause and document its financial impact on the business.
When a business interruption claim is not denied but the insurer and the policyholder disagree on the dollar amount of the loss, most commercial property policies allow either party to demand appraisal. Mag Mile Law handles appraisal demands on behalf of policyholders and, where necessary, litigates to compel insurers to participate.
Appraisal in Illinois is limited to determining the amount of loss — appraisers cannot decide questions of coverage, interpret contract language, or resolve legal disputes. The Illinois Appellate Court drew this line in FTI International, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 339 Ill. App. 3d 258 (2d Dist. 2003). But the court also recognized in Xiang Zhao v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2025 IL App (2d) 240723 (2d Dist. 2025), that resolving some causation questions is necessarily part of determining the extent of loss. This distinction matters because insurers frequently try to avoid appraisal by recharacterizing a loss-amount dispute as a “coverage” issue.
Mag Mile Law also holds insurers to their appraisal obligations. An insurer that demands appraisal years after the claim, after filing motions and conducting discovery, may have waived that right. In Lundy v. Farmers Group, 322 Ill. App. 3d 214 (2d Dist. 2001), the court found exactly that — conduct so inconsistent with the appraisal clause that the insurer had abandoned its right to invoke it.
Under 215 ILCS 5/397.05, when an insured requests appraisal under a fire and extended coverage insurance policy and the insured’s full appraised loss amount is upheld by agreement of the appraisers or umpire, the insurer must pay the insured’s appraisal fee and the umpire’s fee.
Mag Mile Law advises clients on the procedural requirements that can determine whether a business interruption claim survives or fails before it ever reaches the merits. Illinois treats proof of loss as a condition precedent to coverage. You must submit a signed, sworn, and notarized proof of loss within the time period your policy specifies — typically 60 days. Illinois is generally a strict compliance jurisdiction; a document that is not properly sworn or notarized may not satisfy the requirement.
However, the proof of loss requirement can be waived. If the insurer denies your claim on some other ground — causation, an exclusion, lack of coverage — and never mentions the proof of loss, the insurer has waived that defense. This principle goes back to McMahon v. Coronet Insurance Co., 6 Ill. App. 3d 704 (1st Dist. 1972), and Mag Mile Law raises waiver wherever the facts support it.
On filing deadlines, most commercial property policies impose a one- to two-year suit limitation period measured from the date of loss. The general Illinois statute of limitations for written contracts is 10 years (735 ILCS 5/13-206), but contractual shortening is enforceable if reasonable. Critically, 215 ILCS 5/143.1 tolls the running of the policy’s suit limitation from the date you file your proof of loss until the date the insurer denies the claim. The Illinois Appellate Court in Trinity Bible Baptist Church v. Federal Kemper Insurance Co., 219 Ill. App. 3d 156 (5th Dist. 1991), confirmed that this tolling provision was designed to prevent insurers from running out the clock on policyholders during claim handling.
An insurer may also be estopped from asserting a suit limitation deadline if its conduct led you to reasonably believe the claim would be settled. Mag Mile Law evaluates every client’s timeline to protect against procedural dismissal.
Mag Mile Law brings a combination of legal skill and insurance industry knowledge to policyholder-side litigation.
Steven Mikuzis is an insurance coverage and bad-faith litigation partner. He earned his J.D. Cum Laude with Honors from Chicago-Kent College of Law (2003), where he received the CALI Award for Trial Advocacy. He holds a B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (1999). Steven is admitted to the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Missouri. He is a licensed property and casualty insurance producer and the principal of Power Risk Management Services, LLC, named one of 11 Best Practices Agencies in Illinois in 2025. Chicago Magazine recognized Steven as an “Outstanding Young Lawyer” in 2010 and 2012. His notable decisions include Bradley Hotel Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. (7th Cir. 2021), a leading COVID-19 coverage case, and Crawford v. Belhaven Realty, a $2.3 million judgment obtained after appellate reversal.
Mario Iveljic is a founding partner and lead litigator. He earned his J.D. Cum Laude from Chicago-Kent College of Law (2003), where he received three CALI Awards (Legal Writing, Trial Advocacy, Criminal Procedure). He holds a B.A. in Economics from Yale University. Mario is admitted to the Seventh Circuit, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He is a licensed property and casualty insurance producer and a licensed Realtor, with over 20 years of experience across eight states. He was named a Super Lawyers Rising Star (2008–2010, 2013) and a Chicago Magazine “Outstanding Young Lawyer” (2010, 2013). Mario has been quoted in Forbes, Business Insider, Law360, and LegalZoom, and has represented Fortune 500 companies and international automakers.
Michael Balourdos is a real estate and litigation partner. He earned his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law (2001) and his B.A. in History from Indiana University (1996). Michael has approximately 25 years of experience and is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association. He is a founding partner of Balourdos & Mikuzis, LLP, the firm’s predecessor. Michael also serves as an active partner in a local commercial real estate development firm. The firm’s advertised case results include a $7,000,000 jury verdict (negligent supervision), a $2,394,290 fire insurance recovery, and a $500,000 false pretense claim recovery.
The fact that Steven Mikuzis and Mario Iveljic are both licensed property and casualty insurance producers is central to how Mag Mile Law handles claims. They understand how policies are written, how claims are processed internally, and where carriers cut corners — because they have worked on that side of the industry.
When you contact Mag Mile Law about a business interruption insurance dispute, the firm will review your policy, the insurer’s correspondence, and the documentation surrounding your loss. The goal of an initial consultation is to identify what coverage applies, whether the insurer’s stated basis for denial or underpayment holds up, and what legal options are available.
From there, Mag Mile Law handles the process: gathering the documentation needed to support your claim, engaging experts where necessary to quantify your business income loss, communicating with the carrier, and, if the insurer refuses to pay what it owes, filing suit and pursuing the claim through litigation. The firm also evaluates every case for Section 155 bad faith penalties, prejudgment interest, and consequential damages beyond the policy amount itself.
Business interruption disputes are time-sensitive. Policy deadlines for filing proof of loss and bringing suit are strict, and delay can cost you your right to recover. Mag Mile Law works to protect those deadlines from the outset.
If you are dealing with a denied, delayed, or underpaid business interruption insurance claim in Illinois, contact Mag Mile Law in Chicago. The firm represents policyholders against insurance carriers and has the litigation record, the industry knowledge, and the legal credentials to pursue your claim. Reach Mag Mile Law through its website at magmilelaw.com to schedule a consultation.
Bring your policy and your denial letter. Free consultation. No fee unless we recover.
Free consultation. No fee unless we recover. Call 773-644-9593 or submit the form.
