1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH

ROYAL PALM OPTICAL, INC., on behalf of 

itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE

FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

9:20-cv-80749

STATE FARM’S SEVENTH NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 

AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

State Farm respectfully files this notice of the following supplemental authorities in support 

of its motion to dismiss: Boxed Foods Company, LLC v. California Capital Insurance Company, 

2020 WL 6271021 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2020) (Ex. 1); West Coast Hotel Management, LLC v. 

Berkshire Hathaway Guard Insurance Companies, 2020 WL 6440037 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2020) 

(Ex. 2); Vizza Wash, LP v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Bradley Worth, No. 20-cv00680 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020) (Ex. 3); Uncork and Create LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance 

Company, No. 20-cv-00401 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 2, 2020) (Ex. 4); Real Hospitality, LLC v. Travelers 

Casualty Insurance Company, No. 20-cv-00087 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 4, 2020) (Ex. 5); and Raymond H. 

Nahmad DDS PA v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, 2020 WL 6392841 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 

2020) (Ex. 6). 

In Boxed Foods, the federal district court in California dismissed, as a matter of law and 

with prejudice, COVID-19 business interruption claims. In holding that the virus exclusion barred 

the claims, the court rejected the argument that the virus exclusion did not apply to a pandemic. 

Case 9:20-cv-80749-RS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2020 Page 1 of 4
2

Ex. 1 at *4-5. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that it should be allowed to rely upon 

extrinsic evidence, such as the 2006 ISO circular and alleged misrepresentations made to 

regulators, to inform the “scope and validity” of the virus exclusion and the parties’ reasonable 

expectations regarding it. Id. at *5-6. The court held that extrinsic evidence—which, in any event, 

“suggest that state regulators intended to exclude coverage for damages caused by a pandemic”—

cannot be introduced to contradict the “plain, unambiguous” and “ordinary meaning” of the virus 

exclusion. Id. at *6. 

In West Coast Hotel, the federal district court in California rejected, as a matter of law and 

with prejudice, the allegation that there was a “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered 

property. Ex. 2 at *4. In holding that the virus exclusion also barred the claims, the court rejected 

the argument that the virus exclusion did not apply to a pandemic, finding it “akin to arguing that 

a coverage exclusion for damage caused by fire does not apply to damage caused by a very large 

fire.” Id. at *6.

In Vizza Wash, the federal district court in Texas dismissed COVID-19 business interruption 

claims, as a matter of law and with prejudice, based on the policy’s virus exclusion. Ex. 3 at 14.

In Uncork and Create, the federal district court in West Virginia dismissed COVID-19 

business interruption claims, as a matter of law. The court held that “[t]he novel coronavirus has no 

effect on the physical premises of a business” and “even when present, COVID-19 does not threaten 

the inanimate structures covered by property insurance policies, and its presence on surfaces can be 

eliminated with disinfectant. Thus, even actual presence of the virus would not be sufficient to trigger 

coverage for physical damage or physical loss to the property.” Ex. 4 at 7, 9, 10.

In Real Hospitality, the federal district court in Mississippi dismissed COVID-19 business 

interruption claims, as a matter of law. The court held that the plaintiff had not properly alleged 

Case 9:20-cv-80749-RS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2020 Page 2 of 4
3

direct physical loss and that “even if Plaintiff was able to show it suffered such loss or damage, 

coverage would be precluded” under the “clear” and “unequivocal” language of the virus exclusion. 

Ex. 5 at 11, 13. 

In Nahmad, the federal district court in Florida dismissed COVID-19 business interruption

claims, as a matter of law and with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiff had not alleged direct 

physical loss and that “even if the Complaint’s allegations came within the Policy’s coverage grants, 

the virus exclusion applies to bar coverage.” Ex. 6 at *8-10. 

/s/ D. Matthew Allen 

Benjamine Reid (FBN 183522)

CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.

Miami Tower

100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 4200

Miami, FL 33131-2113

Telephone: (305) 539-7222

Facsimile: (305) 530-0055

Email: breid@carltonfields.com

D. Matthew Allen (FBN 866326)

CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.

4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000

Tampa, FL 33607

Telephone No. (813) 223-7000

Facsimile No. (813) 229-4133

Email: mallen@carltonfields.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

OF COUNSEL:

Douglas W. Dunham

Bert L. Wolff

DECHERT LLP

Three Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3500 (Telephone)

(212) 698-3599 (Fax)

douglas.dunham@dechert.com

bert.wolff@dechert.com

Case 9:20-cv-80749-RS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2020 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 9, 2020, I filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court through the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic 

filing to counsel of record.

/s/ D. Matthew Allen

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-80749-RS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2020 Page 4 of 4