UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. __________________

ATMA BEAUTY, INC., individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. CLASS ACTION

HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY SE, AXIS 

SPECIALTY EUROPE SE, UNDERWRITERS 

AT LLOYD’S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO 

POLICY NUMBER RSK003959, and 

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON 

KNOWN AS SYNDICATES AFB 2623, 

AFB 623, APL 1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987, 

BRT 2988, HIS 33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, 

MSP 318, NVA 2007, TRV 5000, XLC 2003, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Atma Beauty, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, files 

this class action against HDI Global Specialty SE, Axis Specialty Europe SE, Underwriters at 

Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy Number RSK003959 and Underwriters at Lloyd’s London 

known as Syndicates AFB 2623, AFB 623, APL 1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987, BRT 2988, HIS 

33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, MSP 318, NVA 2007, TRV 5000, and XLC 2003, and in support states 

the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Atma Beauty, Inc. is the owner and operator of Atma Beauty, a full-service 

salon and medical spa located at 1874 West Avenue in Miami Beach, Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 1 of 26
2

2. To protect the salon and the income from operation of the salon, Plaintiff purchased

a property insurance policy with policy number RSK003959 (the “Policy”). 

3. The Policy was issued and underwritten by Defendants HDI Global Specialty SE, 

Axis Specialty Europe SE, Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy Number 

RSK003959 and Underwriters at Lloyd’s London known as Syndicates AFB 2623, AFB 623, APL 

1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987, BRT 2988, HIS 33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, MSP 318, NVA 2007, 

TRV 5000, and XLC 2003.

4. The Policy is a bilateral contract: Plaintiff agreed to pay monthly premiums to 

Defendants, in exchange for Defendants’ promises of coverage for certain losses.

5. Among other types of coverage, the Policy protects Plaintiff against a loss of 

business income due to a suspension of the salon’s operations. This type of coverage is often 

referred to as business interruption coverage. 

6. The Policy also provides “Extra Expense” coverage, under which Defendants 

promised to pay expenses incurred to minimize the suspension of business. Additionally, the 

Policy provides “Civil Authority” coverage, under which Defendants promised to pay for loss of 

business income caused by the action of a civil authority prohibiting access to the salon. 

7. Plaintiff duly complied with its obligations under the Policy, and paid the requisite 

premiums. 

8. Beginning in March 2020, Plaintiff was forced to suspend business operations at 

the salon, as a result of COVID-19. Related actions of civil authorities also prohibited access to 

and occupancy of the salon. This suspension, which is ongoing, has caused Plaintiff to suffer 

significant losses and incur significant expenses.

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 2 of 26
3

9. Under the Policy, Defendants promised to cover these losses and expenses, and are 

obligated to pay for them. But in blatant breach of their contractual obligations, Defendants have 

failed to pay for these losses and expenses. 

10. Upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to pay for similar losses and 

expenses by at least thousands of other insureds holding policies that are, in all material respects, 

identical. 

THE PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Atma Beauty, Inc. is a Florida corporation organized to do business and 

doing business at 1874 West Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139.

12. Defendant HDI Global Specialty SE (“HDI Global”) is a European society 

company organized under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business in Germany. 

HDI Global is a wholly owned subsidiary of Talanx AG, a publicly traded company organized 

under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business in Germany. At all times material, 

HDI Global, Talanx AG, and other Talanx subsidiaries engaged in continuous and not isolated 

activity in the United States and specifically in Florida, including but not limited to contracting to 

insure property located in Florida. 

13. Defendant Axis Specialty Europe SE (“Axis Specialty”) is a European society 

company organized under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business in Ireland. Axis 

Specialty is a wholly owned subsidiary of Axis Capital Holdings Limited, a publicly traded 

company organized under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in Bermuda. 

At all times material, Axis Specialty, Axis Capital Holdings Limited, and other affiliated 

companies engaged in continuous and not isolated activity in the United States and specifically in 

Florida, including but not limited to contracting to insure property located in Florida. At all times 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 3 of 26
4

material, Axis Capital Holdings Limited maintained several U.S. offices, including an office 

located at 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1820, in Miami, Florida. 

14. Defendants Underwriters at Lloyd’s London known as Syndicates AFB 2623, AFB 

623, APL 1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987, BRT 2988, HIS 33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, MSP 318, 

NVA 2007, TRV 5000, and XLC 2003, and Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy 

Number RSK003959 (collectively, the “Lloyd’s Defendants”) are insurance underwriters that 

participate in the insurance market known as Lloyd’s of London. At Lloyd’s of London, insurance 

underwriters form syndicates to jointly price and underwrite risk. These syndicates enter into 

insurance contracts on behalf of their members, and the members share the premiums, risk, and 

liability on these contracts. Each Lloyd’s syndicate is identified by its syndicate number. 

15. The Lloyd’s Defendants are insurance underwriters who contracted—by and 

through the syndicates of which they are members—to insure the Atma Beauty salon. As indicated 

in Atma Beauty’s Policy, the underwriters of the Policy include the members of the Lloyd’s 

syndicates identified by the numbers AFB 2623, AFB 623, APL 1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987, 

BRT 2988, HIS 33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, MSP 318, NVA 2007, TRV 5000, and XLC 2003. 

16. At all times material, Defendants engaged in substantial and not isolated activity 

on a continuous and systematic basis in the state of Florida, namely by issuing and selling 

insurance policies in Florida and by contracting to insure property located in Florida. 

17. Under the applicable law and in accordance with the Policy’s Service of Suit 

Clause, service of process on Defendants may be effectuated by serving Mendes & Mount, at 750 

Seventh Avenue, New York, New York, 10019.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 4 of 26
5

18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is 

diversity between Defendants and at least one member of each class; there are more than one 

hundred members of each class; and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of 

interest and costs. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 

2202 and is authorized to grant declaratory relief under these statutes.

19. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a 

substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within the 

Southern District of Florida, and a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated 

in this district.

20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 

48.193(1)(a) because Plaintiff’s claims arise out of, among other things, Defendants conducting, 

engaging in, and/or carrying on business in Florida; Defendants breaching a contract in this state 

by failing to perform acts required by contract to be performed in this state; and Defendants 

contracting to insure property in Florida, including but not limited to the premises insured under 

the Policy. Defendants also purposefully availed themselves of the opportunity of conducting 

activities in the state of Florida by marketing their insurance policies and services within the state, 

and intentionally developing relationships with brokers, agents, and customers within the state to 

insure property within the state, all of which resulted in the policy at issue in this action.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Policy

21. In December 2019, Plaintiff obtained the Policy, a property insurance policy issued 

and underwritten by Defendants. The Policy has a policy period of December 19, 2019 to 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 5 of 26
6

December 19, 2020. The insured property under the Policy is 1874 West Avenue, in Miami 

Beach, Florida, the location of the Atma Beauty salon.

1

22. The Policy is an all-risk insurance policy. In an all-risk insurance policy, all risks 

of loss are covered unless they are specifically excluded. 

23. Consistent with the all-risk nature of the Policy, Defendants specifically agreed to 

pay for all losses caused by “Covered Causes of Loss,” defined as “Risks Of Direct Physical Loss” 

unless the loss is excluded under the Policy. 

24. One type of coverage provided by the Policy is for loss of business income, often 

called business interruption insurance. This coverage is specifically provided for in a section of 

the Policy titled “Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form.”

25. Pursuant to this Form, Defendants promised to pay for “Loss of Business Income” 

caused by a Covered Cause of Loss. Specifically, Defendants promised to pay for the loss of 

Business Income sustained due to the necessary “suspension” of the insured’s “operations” during 

the “period of restoration.” 

26. Each of the operative terms of this coverage provision is defined as follows.

27. Business Income means the net profit that the business would have earned absent 

the suspension of operations, plus any continuing normal operating expenses, including payroll. 

1 The Policy is attached to this complaint as Exhibit “A.” 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 6 of 26
7

28. Suspension means, among other things, a slowdown or cessation of the insured’s 

business activities. 

29. Period of Restoration means the period of time beginning 72 hours after physical 

loss or damage to the property and ending on the date when the property is repaired or the date 

when business is resumed at a new location, whichever is earlier. 

30. Additionally, under the Policy, Defendants also promised to cover “Extended 

Business Income.” This coverage requires Defendants to pay for loss of business income beyond

the Period of Restoration under certain conditions. 

31. Specifically, Defendants promised to pay for the actual loss of Business Income 

during the period that begins on the date that the insured property is repaired, and ends either 60 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 7 of 26
8

days thereafter or on the date when operations are restored to the level which would generate 

business income at normal levels, whichever is earlier. 

32. In addition to promising to pay for loss of Business Income, under the Policy,

Defendants also promised to pay for certain necessary “Extra Expense[s].” Extra Expenses mean 

expenses that the policyholder incurs to, for example, minimize the suspension of business. 

33. The Policy also provides “Civil Authority” coverage. Under this type of coverage, 

Defendants promised to pay for the loss of Business Income and Extra Expense that the Plaintiff 

sustained as a result of “action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises

[Atma Beauty].”

34. This Civil Authority provision is an independent basis for business interruption

coverage. That is, it can be triggered even when the standard business interruption coverage is 

not.

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 8 of 26
9

35. Parts of the Policy, including the “Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage 

Form,” are standardized forms drafted by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The ISO is a 

company that drafts standard policy language for use in insurance contracts. 

36. In 2006, the ISO drafted a new endorsement, CP 01 40 07 06, acknowledging that 

claims for business interruption losses would be filed under existing policy language for losses 

resulting from the presence of disease-causing agents. Endorsement CP 01 40 07 06, which other 

insurers have since incorporated in policies, provides that the insurer “will not pay for loss or 

damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or 

is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.” Significantly, Defendants chose to not 

include this endorsement in Plaintiff’s Policy. 

37. Plaintiff’s Policy does not contain any exclusion which would apply to allow 

Defendants to deny coverage for losses caused by COVID-19 and related actions of civil 

authorities taken in response to COVID-19.

38. Accordingly, because the Policy is an all-risk policy and does not specifically 

exclude the losses that Plaintiff has suffered, those losses are covered. 

Plaintiff’s covered losses

39. As of April 24, 2020, according to the Florida Department of Health, COVID-19 is 

present in all of Florida’s 67 counties, with Miami-Dade and Broward counties being the most 

affected counties. As of April 24, Miami-Dade County, where Miami Beach is located, has had 

over ten thousand confirmed cases of COVID-19, and at least 287 deaths. 

40. The presence of COVID-19 and the public health emergency it has created have 

prompted actions by civil authorities throughout the United States (“Civil Authority Actions”), 

including but not limited to civil authorities with jurisdiction over Atma Beauty: the City of Miami 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 9 of 26
10

Beach, Miami-Dade County, and the state of Florida. These Civil Authority Actions have 

restricted and prohibited access to the insured property. 

41. On March 12, 2020, the City of Miami Beach declared a State of Emergency in 

response to COVID-19. On April 23, the City extended the State of Emergency declaration 

through April 30, citing, among other things, the propensity of COVID-19 to “caus[e] property 

loss and damage in certain circumstances.”

42. Throughout March and April 2020, the City of Miami Beach issued and extended 

several Emergency Orders that ordered all City residents to remain home with certain exceptions, 

and closed all non-essential retail and commercial establishments, including but not limited to 

beauty salons.

43. On March 19, 2020, Miami-Dade County issued Emergency Order 07-20, requiring 

the closure of all non-essential businesses, including but not limited to beauty salons. 

44. On March 30, 2020, the Governor of Florida signed Executive Order 20-89, 

ordering Miami-Dade County, among other counties, “to restrict public access” to non-essential 

businesses.

45. In Florida, violations of an executive order issued by the Governor pursuant to the 

State Emergency Management Act are second-degree misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment. 

46. The presence of COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of and/or damage to the 

covered premises under the Policy by, among other things, damaging the property, denying access 

to the property, preventing customers from physically occupying the property, causing the property 

to be physically uninhabitable by customers, causing its function to be nearly eliminated or 

destroyed, and/or causing a suspension of business operations on the premises. 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 10 of 26
11

47. The Civil Authority Actions prohibiting public access to the covered premises and 

the surrounding area were issued in response to dangerous physical conditions and caused a 

suspension of business operations on the covered premises. 

48. As a result of the presence of COVID-19, Atma Beauty has suffered a suspension

of business operations, sustained losses of business income, and incurred extra expenses.

49. As a result of the Civil Authority Actions, Atma Beauty has suffered a suspension 

of business operations, sustained losses of business income, and incurred extra expenses. 

50. These losses and expenses have continued through the date of filing of this action. 

Indeed, as of the date of filing, the salon remains closed. 

51. These losses and expenses are not excluded from coverage under the Policy. And 

because the Policy is an all-risk policy, and Plaintiff has complied with its contractual obligations, 

Plaintiff is entitled to payment for these losses and expenses. 

52. Accordingly, Plaintiff provided notice of its losses and expenses to Defendants, 

consistent with the terms and procedures of the Policy.

53. But contrary to the plain language of the Policy, and to Defendants’ corresponding 

promises and contractual obligations, Defendants have refused to pay for Plaintiff’s losses and 

expenses.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

54. The class claims all derive directly from a single course of conduct by Defendants: 

their systematic and uniform refusal to pay insureds for losses suffered due to the COVID-19 

pandemic and the related actions taken by civil authorities to suspend business operations. 

55. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and/or 

23(b)(3), as well as 23(c)(4), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 11 of 26
12

of all others similarly situated. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, 

adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions.

56. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide classes defined as:

a) All persons and entities with Business Income coverage under a property 

insurance policy issued by any of the Defendants, which suffered a suspension of business 

due to COVID-19, and for which Defendants have denied a claim for the losses or have 

otherwise failed to acknowledge, accept as a covered loss, or pay for the covered

losses (“the Business Income Coverage Class”).

b) All persons and entities with Civil Authority coverage under a property 

insurance policy issued by any of the Defendants, which suffered loss of Business Income 

and/or Extra Expense caused by an action of a civil authority, and for which Defendants 

have denied a claim for the losses or have otherwise failed to acknowledge, accept as a 

covered loss, or pay for the covered losses (“the Civil Authority Coverage Class”).

c) All persons and entities with Extra Expense coverage under a property 

insurance policy issued by any of the Defendants, which sought to avoid or minimize the 

suspension of business caused by COVID-19 and/or the actions of civil authorities in 

response to COVID-19, and for which Defendants have denied a claim for the expenses or 

have otherwise failed to acknowledge, accept as a covered expense, or pay for the covered 

expenses (“the Extra Expense Coverage Class”).

57. Excluded from each defined proposed Class are Defendants and any of their 

members, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, or assigns; 

governmental entities; Class Counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and Court staff 

assigned to this case and their immediate family members.

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 12 of 26
13

58. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, expand, or amend the definitions of the 

proposed Classes, as appropriate, during the course of this litigation.

59. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained on behalf of each 

Class proposed herein under the criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Numerosity and Ascertainability

60. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The members of 

each proposed Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. 

There are, at a minimum, thousands of members of each proposed Class, and these individuals and 

entities are spread out across the country.

61. The identity of Class members is ascertainable, as the names and addresses of all 

Class members can be identified in Defendants’ or their agents’ books and records. Class members 

may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination 

methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice.

Predominance of Common Issues

62. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3) 

because this action involves common questions of law and fact which predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual Class members. Defendants issued all-risk policies to all the 

members of each proposed Class in exchange for payment of premiums by the Class members. 

The questions of law and fact affecting all Class members include, without limitation, the 

following: 

a) Whether Plaintiff and the Class members suffered a covered loss under the 

common policies issued to members of the Class;

b) Whether Defendants wrongfully denied all claims based on COVID-19;

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 13 of 26
14

c) Whether Defendants’ Business Income coverage applies to a suspension of 

business caused by COVID-19 and/or related actions of civil authorities 

taken in response to the presence or threat of COVID-19;

d) Whether Defendants’ Civil Authority coverage applies to a loss of Business 

Income caused by the orders of local, municipal, city, county, and/or state 

governmental entities requiring the suspension of business during the 

outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States;

e) Whether Defendants’ Extra Expense coverage applies to efforts to avoid or 

minimize a loss caused by COVID-19;

f) Whether Defendants have breached their contracts of insurance through a 

uniform and blanket denial of all claims for business losses related to 

COVID-19 and/or the related actions of civil authorities taken in response 

to the presence or threat of COVID-19; 

g) Whether Plaintiff and the Class members suffered damages as a result of 

Defendants’ actions; and

h) Whether Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.

Typicality

63. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiff’s 

claims are typical of the claims of the Class members and arise from the same course of conduct 

by Defendants. Plaintiff and the other Class members are all similarly affected by Defendants’ 

refusal to pay under their property insurance policies. Plaintiff’s claims are based upon the same 

legal theories as those of the other Class members. Plaintiff and the other Class members sustained

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 14 of 26
15

damages as a direct and proximate result of the same wrongful practices in which Defendants 

engaged. The relief Plaintiff seeks is typical of the relief sought for the absent Class members.

Adequacy of Representation

64. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) because Plaintiff 

will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of Class members. Plaintiff has 

retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex class action litigation.

65. Plaintiff and its counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on 

behalf of the Class members and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor its 

counsel has interests adverse to those of the Class members.

Inconsistent or Varying Adjudications and the Risk of Impediments to Other Class 

Members’ Interests

66. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks 

class-wide adjudication as to the interpretation and scope of Defendants’ property insurance 

policies. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed Classes 

would create an imminent risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. 

Final Injunctive and/or Corresponding Declaratory Relief with respect to the Class is 

Appropriate

67. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because 

Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the other Class 

members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and/or corresponding declaratory relief with 

respect to the Class members. The class claims all derive directly from Defendants’ systematic 

and uniform refusal to pay insureds for losses suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 

related actions taken by civil authorities to suspend business operations. Defendants’ actions or 

refusal to act are grounded upon the same generally applicable legal theories. 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 15 of 26
16

Superiority

68. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because a class 

action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this 

controversy. The common questions of law and of fact regarding Defendants’ conduct and the 

interpretation of the common language in their property insurance policies predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual Class members. 

69. Because the damages suffered by certain individual Class members may be 

relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it very difficult or 

impossible for all individual Class members to redress the wrongs done to each of them 

individually, such that many Class members would have no rational economic interest in 

individually controlling the prosecution of specific actions, and the burden imposed on the judicial 

system by individual litigation by even a small fraction of the Class would be enormous, making 

class adjudication the superior alternative under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A).

70. The conduct of this action as a class action presents far fewer management 

difficulties, far better conserves judicial resources and the parties’ resources, and far more 

effectively protects the rights of each Class member than would piecemeal litigation. Compared 

to the expense, burdens, inconsistencies, economic infeasibility, and inefficiencies of 

individualized litigation, the challenges of managing this action as a class action are substantially 

outweighed by the benefits to the legitimate interests of the parties, the Court, and the public of 

class treatment in this Court, making class adjudication superior to other alternatives, under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D).

71. Plaintiff is not aware of any obstacles likely to be encountered in the management 

of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. Rule 23 provides the Court 

with authority and flexibility to maximize the efficiencies and benefits of the class mechanism and 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 16 of 26
17

reduce management challenges. The Court may, on motion of Plaintiff or on its own 

determination, certify nationwide, statewide and/or multistate classes for claims sharing common 

legal questions; utilize the provisions of Rule 23(c)(4) to certify any particular claims, issues, or 

common questions of fact or law for class-wide adjudication; certify and adjudicate bellwether 

class claims; and utilize Rule 23(c)(5) to divide any Class into subclasses.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(On behalf of the Business Income Coverage Class)

72. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71 above.

73. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Business Income Coverage Class.

74. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights 

and other legal relations of the parties in dispute.

75. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as the policies of other Business Income Coverage Class

members, are insurance contracts under which Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for 

promises to pay Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy.

76. In the Policy, Defendants promised to pay for losses of business income sustained

as a result of perils not excluded under the Policy. Specifically, Defendants promised to pay for 

losses of business income sustained as a result of a suspension of business operations during the 

Period of Restoration. 

77. COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of and damage to Atma Beauty and other 

Class members’ insured premises, resulting in suspensions of business operations at these 

premises. These suspensions have caused Plaintiff and Class members to suffer losses of business 

income. 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 17 of 26
18

78. These suspensions and losses triggered business income coverage under the Policy 

and other Class members’ policies. 

79. Plaintiff and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions 

of their respective policies, including payment of premiums.

80. Defendants, without justification, dispute that the Policy and other Class members’ 

policies provide coverage for these losses.

81. Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that its Policy and other Class members’ 

policies provide coverage for the losses of business income.

82. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiff’s and other Class members’

rights and Defendants’ obligations to reimburse Plaintiff and other Class members for the full 

amount of these losses. Accordingly, the Declaratory Judgment sought is justiciable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring 

that the Policy and other Class members’ policies provide coverage for Class members’ losses of 

business income.

COUNT II: BREACH OF CONTRACT

(On behalf of the Business Income Coverage Class)

83. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71 above.

84. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Business Income Coverage Class.

85. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as the policies of other Business Income Coverage Class

members, are insurance contracts under which Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for 

promises to pay Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy.

86. In the Policy, Defendants promised to pay for losses of business income sustained

as a result of perils not excluded under the Policy. Specifically, Defendants promised to pay for 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 18 of 26
19

losses of business income sustained as a result of a suspension of business operations during the 

Period of Restoration. 

87. COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of and damage to Atma Beauty and other 

Class members’ insured premises, resulting in suspensions of business operations at these 

premises. These suspensions have caused Class members to suffer losses of business income. 

88. These suspensions and losses triggered business income coverage under the Policy 

and other Class members’ policies. 

89. Plaintiff and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions 

of their respective policies, including payment of premiums.

90. Defendants, without justification, have refused performance under the Policy and 

other Class members’ policies by denying coverage for these losses and expenses. Accordingly, 

Defendants are in breach of the Policy and other Class members’ policies. 

91. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the Policy and other Class members’ 

policies, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered actual and substantial damages for which 

Defendants are liable. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other Class members, seeks 

compensatory damages resulting from Defendants’ breaches of the Policy and other Class 

Members’ policies and seek all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court, including attorneys’ 

fees and costs.

COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(On behalf of the Extra Expense Coverage Class)

92. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71 above.

93. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Extra Expense Coverage Class.

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 19 of 26
20

94. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights 

and other legal relations of the parties in dispute.

95. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as the policies of other Extra Expense Coverage Class

members, are insurance contracts under which Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for 

promises to pay Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy.

96. Specifically, Defendants promised to pay for Extra Expenses incurred by Plaintiff 

and other Class members during the Period of Restoration that the insureds would not have 

incurred if there had been no loss or damage to the insured premises. These Extra Expenses include 

expenses to avoid or minimize the suspension of business, continue operations, and to repair or 

replace property. 

97. COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of and damage to Atma Beauty and other 

Class members’ insured premises, resulting in suspensions of business operations at these 

premises. As a result, Plaintiff and other Class members have incurred Extra Expenses. 

98. These Expenses triggered Extra Expense coverage under the Policy and other Class 

members’ policies. 

99. Plaintiff and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions 

of their respective policies, including payment of premiums.

100. Defendants, without justification, dispute that the Policy and other Class members’ 

policies provide coverage for these Extra Expenses.

101. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other members of the Extra Expense 

Coverage Class, seeks a Declaratory Judgment that its Policy, and those of other members of the 

Extra Expense Coverage Class, provides coverage for these Extra Expenses.

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 20 of 26
21

102. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Class members’ rights and 

Defendants’ obligations under Class members’ policies to reimburse Class members for these 

Extra Expenses. Accordingly, the Declaratory Judgment sought is justiciable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring 

that the Policy and other Class members’ policies provide coverage for Class members’ Extra 

Expenses.

COUNT IV: BREACH OF CONTRACT

(On behalf of the Extra Expense Coverage Class)

103. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71 above.

104. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Extra Expense Coverage Class.

105. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as the policies of other Extra Expense Coverage Class

members, are insurance contracts under which Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for 

promises to pay Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy.

106. Specifically, Defendants promised to pay for Extra Expenses incurred by Plaintiff 

and other Class members during the Period of Restoration that the insureds would not have 

incurred if there had been no loss or damage to the insured premises. These Extra Expenses include 

expenses to avoid or minimize the suspension of business, continue operations, and to repair or 

replace property. 

107. COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of and damage to Atma Beauty and other 

Class members’ insured premises, resulting in suspensions of business operations at these 

premises. These suspensions have caused Class members to incur Extra Expenses. 

108. These Expenses triggered Extra Expense coverage under the Policy and other Class 

members’ policies. 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 21 of 26
22

109. Plaintiff and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions 

of the Policy, including payment of premiums.

110. Defendants, without justification, have refused performance under the Policy and 

other Class members’ policies by denying coverage for these Extra Expenses. Accordingly, 

Defendants are in breach of the Policy and other Class members’ policies. 

111. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the Policy and other Class members’ 

policies, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered actual and substantial damages for which 

Defendants are liable. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other Class members, seeks

compensatory damages resulting from Defendants’ breaches of the Policy and other Class 

Members’ policies and seek all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court, including attorneys’ 

fees and costs.

COUNT V: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(On behalf of the Civil Authority Coverage Class)

112. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71 above.

113. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Civil Authority Coverage Class.

114. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights 

and other legal relations of the parties in dispute.

115. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as the policies of other Civil Authority Coverage Class

members, are insurance contracts under which Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for 

promises to pay Class members’ losses for claims covered by the policies.

116. In the Policy and other Class members’ policies, Defendants promised to pay for 

losses of business income sustained and extra expenses incurred when, among other things, a 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 22 of 26
23

Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property near the insured premises, the civil authority 

prohibits access to property near the insured premises, and the civil authority action is taken in 

response to dangerous physical conditions. 

117. Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered losses and incurred expenses as a 

result of actions of civil authorities that prohibited access to insured premises under the Policy and 

Class members’ policies. 

118. These losses satisfied all requirements to trigger Civil Authority coverage under the 

Policy and other Class members’ policies. 

119. Plaintiff and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions 

of the Policy, including payment of premiums.

120. Defendants, without justification, dispute that the Policy provides coverage for 

these losses.

121. Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that its Policy and other Class members’ 

policies provide coverage for the losses that Class members have sustained and extra expenses 

they have incurred caused by actions of civil authorities. 

122. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Class members’ rights and 

Defendants’ obligations under Class members’ policies to reimburse Class members for these 

losses and extra expenses. Accordingly, the Declaratory Judgment sought is justiciable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other Class members, requests that 

this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring that the Policy provides Civil Authority 

coverage for the losses and extra expenses incurred by Plaintiff and the other Class members.

COUNT VI: BREACH OF CONTRACT

(On behalf of the Civil Authority Coverage Class)

123. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71 above.

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 23 of 26
24

124. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Civil Authority Coverage Class. 

125. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as the policies of other Civil Authority Coverage Class

members, are insurance contracts under which Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for 

promises to pay Class members’ losses and expenses covered by the Policy.

126. In the Policy and other Class members’ policies, Defendants promised to pay for 

losses of business income sustained and extra expenses incurred when a Covered Cause of Loss 

causes damage to property near the insured premises, the civil authority prohibits access to 

property near the insured premises, and the civil authority action is taken in response to dangerous 

physical conditions. 

127. Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered losses and incurred expenses as a 

result of actions of civil authorities that prohibited access to insured premises under the Policy and 

Class members’ policies. 

128. These losses satisfied all requirements to trigger Civil Authority coverage under the 

Policy and other Class members’ policies. 

129. Plaintiff and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions 

of the Policy, including payment of premiums.

130. Defendants, without justification, have refused performance under the Policy and 

other Class members’ policies by denying coverage for these losses and expenses. Accordingly, 

Defendants are in breach of the Policy and other Class members’ policies. 

131. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the Policy and other Class members’ 

policies, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered actual and substantial damages for which 

Defendants are liable. 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 24 of 26
25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages resulting from Defendants’ 

breaches of the Policy and other Class members’ policies. and seek all other relief deemed 

appropriate by this Court, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor 

and against Defendants, as follows:

A. Entering an order certifying the proposed nationwide Classes, designating Plaintiff 

as Class representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s undersigned attorneys as Counsel 

for the classes;

B. Entering declaratory judgments on Counts I, III, and V in favor of Plaintiff and the 

members of the Business Income Coverage Class, Civil Authority Coverage Class, 

and Extra Expense Coverage Class as follows:

i. Business Income, Civil Authority and Extra Expense losses and expenses 

incurred and sustained as a result of COVID-19 and related civil authority 

actions are insured and covered losses and expenses under Plaintiff’s and 

Class members’ policies; and

ii. Defendants are obligated to pay for the full amount of the Business Income, 

Civil Authority and Extra Expense losses and expenses sustained and 

incurred, and to be sustained and incurred, as a result of COVID-19 and 

related civil authority actions are insured and covered losses and expenses 

under Plaintiff and Class members’ policies;

C. Entering judgments on counts II, IV, and VI in favor of Plaintiff and the members 

of the Business Income Coverage Class, Civil Authority Coverage Class, and Extra 

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 25 of 26
26

Expense Coverage Class; and awarding damages for breach of contract in an 

amount to be determined at trial;

D. An order requiring Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any 

amounts awarded;

E. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees; and

F. Such other or further relief as may be appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The undersigned hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Dated: April 27, 2020 PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.

/s/ Steven C. Marks

Steven C. Marks (Fla. Bar. No. 516414)

Aaron S. Podhurst (Fla. Bar. No. 63606)

Lea P. Bucciero (Fla. Bar. No. 84763) 

Matthew P. Weinshall (Fla. Bar. No. 84783)

Kristina M. Infante (Fla. Bar. No. 112557)

SunTrust International Center

One Southeast 3rd Ave, Suite 2300

Miami, Florida 33131

Phone: (305) 358-2800

Fax: (305) 358-2382

smarks@podhurst.com

apodhurst@podhurst.com

lbucciero@podhurst.com

mweinshall@podhurst.com

kinfante@podhurst.com

Case 1:20-cv-21745-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 26 of 26