1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT PIERCE DIVISION 

CASE NO. 20-81224-CIV-CANNON 

PF SUNSET VIEW LLC, 

 

 Plaintiffs, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 

 vs. 

 APRIL 8, 2021 

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

 PAGES 1 - 34 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO-CONFERENCED MOTION HEARING 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE AILEEN M. CANNON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ADAM MARK BALKAN, ESQ. 

 Balkan & Patterson, LLP 

 1877 S. Federal Highway 

 Suite 100 

 Boca Raton, FL 33432 

 TIMOTHY BLOOD, ESQ. 

 THOMAS O'REARDON, ESQ. 

 Blood Hurst & O'Reardon 

 501 West Broadway, 

 Suite 1490 

 San Diego, CA 92101 

 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 1 of 34
 2

APPEARANCES (cont'd.) 

FOR THE DEFENDANT: CHRISTINE M. RENELLA, ESQ. 

 Zelle LLP 

 1 SE 3rd Avenue 

 Suite 1600 

 Miami, FL 33131 

 DAN MILLEA ESQ. 

 Zelle LLP 

 500 Washington Avenue South 

 Suite 4000 

 Minneapolis, MN 55415 

 PAUL T. SULLIVAN, ESQ. 

 Zelle LLP 

 161 Worcester Road 

 Suite 502 

 Framingham, MA 01701 

REPORTED BY: DIANE M. MILLER, RMR, CRR, CRC 

 Official Court Reporter 

 United States District Court 

 101 South U.S. Highway 1 

 Fort Pierce, FL 34950 

 (772)467-2337 

 diane_miller@flsd.uscourts.gov 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 2 of 34
 3

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Glass. Please call the

case.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Good morning, Your Honor.

Calling case 20-81224 Cannon, PH Sunset View LLC, et

al., versus Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company.

Can we have Counsel state their appearance, beginning

with the plaintiff, please.

MR. BLOOD: Good morning, Your Honor; Timothy Blood,

for the plaintiffs along with Thomas O'Reardon and Adam Balkan.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Blood, Mr. O'Reardon

and Mr. Balkan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Christine.

MS. RENELLA: Good morning; Christine Renella on

behalf of Atlantic Specialty. I'm local counsel, and

Co-counsel Paul Sullivan is going to be arguing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Your Honor; Paul

Sullivan from Zelle LLP representing Atlantic Specialty

Insurance Company. Also listening in on the hearing are two of

my partners, Dan Millea, and Jim [Unintelligible] from our San

Francisco office; additionally Chris Parr and Casey Chase from

Intact, which is a parent company of Atlantic Specialty, are

listening in on the hearing.

THE COURT: All right, thank you, Mr. Sullivan. So I

take it you are going to be arguing the motion this morning.

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 3 of 34
 4

MR. SULLIVAN: I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Who is going to take the lead on

behalf of Plaintiffs?

MR. BLOOD: I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Excellent, Mr. Blood.

Well, good morning, as I said; thank you all for

being here. Please be reminded of the prohibition on recording

this proceeding both in audio and video. Please also do your

best to speak as clearly and as slowly as you can for the

benefit of our court reporter. And when you are not on the

floor, so to speak, please mute your microphone.

With that out of the way, we are here this morning

for a motion hearing on Defendant's motion for judgment on the

pleadings which appears at docket entry number 28. That was

filed in November 2020 and is fully briefed and ripe for

adjudication.

So with that, Mr. Sullivan, since it is your motion,

why don't you start us off.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

As you noted, the motion before the Court is my

client, Atlantic Specialty's motion for judgment on the

pleadings. My client provided commercial property insurance to

four different Planet Fitness entities in the State of Florida.

Planet Fitness seeks -- these entities seek coverage for their

economic losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic under their

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 4 of 34
 5

commercial property insurance policies.

Atlantic Specialty asks this Court to rule as a

matter of law Planet Fitness does not state a claim for relief

in the complaint because it did not state facts which would

meet the threshold requirements of insurance coverage.

Specifically, they did not sustain direct physical loss of or

damage to property as required to trigger the policies at

issue.

Unfortunately, the pandemic has had a widespread

economic effect throughout the country including the State of

Florida. As a result, the Court has the benefit of a number of

orders in this district and around the country that deal with

the issues in dispute here.

The recent Carrot Love decision in January, Judge

Scola characterized the decisions on this issue as follows.

Judge Scola stated that "The courts have taken the nearly

unanimous view that COVID-19 does not cause direct physical

loss or damage to property sufficient to trigger coverage under

the policy at issue here;" and that is also the case in the --

with respect to Planet Fitness's claim, Your Honor. 

In our papers, we go through a number of decisions in

this district, and I'm not going to go through each of them

here; however, I would like to take some time to walk the Court

through the issues -- the policies at issue in order to explain

why those decisions are correctly decided under the policy.

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 5 of 34
 6

Pardon me for hoping for some -- I'm going to show a

slide. I just want to see if that slide is on your screen

which -- you should have a slide which says "business

interruption."

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: All right.

THE COURT: Can everybody see the slide?

MR. BLOOD: Yes.

THE COURT: Excellent.

And, Mr. Sullivan, did you share this with opposing

Counsel prior to today's hearing?

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not and I apologize; however, it

is all -- this slide is the business interruption definition

from the policy and the period of restoration definition in the

policy. Additionally, the next slide I'm going to use towards

the end of the presentation is the civil authority coverage.

All of this has been -- were excerpted in the briefs, and of

course they are in the policies that were attached to the

complaint.

THE COURT: All right. I will permit the use of the

PowerPoint to facilitate this morning's discussion as it is

essentially just a reiteration of the applicable policy

provisions.

MR. SULLIVAN: And before I refer to the specific

slides, Your Honor, the policies that the insurer is making a

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 6 of 34
 7

claim under are property insurance policies. So to the extent

that there was a fire at a Planet Fitness facility, the policy

would provide coverage for the cost to repair the fire damage,

and the coverage -- the policy also provides what is known as

"time element coverage." And it is called "time element" -- it

was referred to as a "time element coverage" including business

interruption coverage, and the reason that these are referred

to as "time element coverage" is it provides for the loss of

income for the period of time it takes to repair the damaged

property. So to the extent that Planet Fitness sustained a

fire loss, there would be -- the business interruption loss

coverage would replace their income stream for the period of

time it took to repair the fire damage, okay.

So specifically, if you look at the business

interruption coverage here, you will see those are addressed.

In the specific business interruption definition, you will see

that the business interruption coverage provides for the actual

loss of business income you sustain due to the necessary

suspension of operations during the period of restoration. So

there is a causal relationship between there needs to be a

demonstrated causal collection between suspension and the

actual loss of business income.

Additionally, the suspension must be caused by direct

physical loss of or damage to property, okay. So in order for

an insured to obtain coverage under the policy, they have to

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 7 of 34
 8

meet these specific elements: There needs to be direct

physical loss or damage, there needs to be a suspension, and

there needs to be a loss resulting from that suspension.

And you will note that the period of restoration is

defined as was suggested by the example I provided. It is

defined as "the period of time that begins with the date of

direct physical loss." So on the date of the fire when the

building is damaged, that's the date that the period of

restoration starts. And then they are entitled to their lost

income for the period of time, which is why it is referred to

as a "time element coverage," the period of time it takes to

repair that property, replace that property with due diligence

and dispatch, okay. So that is the coverage that we are

talking about here, Your Honor; and so then I want to compare

the example I provided of the fire at the facility with the

claims that are being made here by Planet Fitness. 

Under the policy, there has to be a demonstration of

direct physical loss or damage, and there isn't any. The

complaint doesn't even allege that there was any virus on the

premises, let alone that there was any actual change to the

property brought about by the virus. And there certainly isn't

any allegation in the complaint that there was any time taken

to repair any physical damage to the premises because there

isn't any.

So even when you look at the language in isolation --

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 8 of 34
 9

and we will talk about the cases that interpret the direct

physical loss or damage provisions in a minute; but even when

you look at that direct physical loss or damage language in

isolation, it is clear that "virus" just doesn't fall into that

category, and there is no trigger. When you look at it in

context, that becomes even more clear because the claim just

doesn't make any sense in the context of the policy.

The policy provides for the period of time to repair

the property and to get their income stream for that period of

time, none of that exists in this case. And again, the

complaint doesn't even allege that the virus was present let

alone that there was -- that any period of time to, you know,

repair or clean the property.

In our papers, we rely heavily on the Mama Jo's

decision from the Eleventh Circuit. This is not particularly

creative lawyering on our part because that same decision has

been pointed to in every decision in this district which has

made the decision that there isn't direct physical loss

sufficient to provide coverage for these types of losses.

The facts very briefly of Mama Jo's were that this

was a Miami restaurant, and there was construction nearby and

there was dust on the -- construction dust and debris that made

its way into the restaurant that needed to be cleaned

regularly. Mama Jo's made a business interruption claim

related to that, and the court very clearly stated that just

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 9 of 34
 10

the mere cleaning of dust does not constitute direct physical

damage under Florida law.

THE COURT: Mr. Sullivan, on that point of Florida

law, I know the Mama Jo's decision cites I think two or maybe

more Florida state court decisions on sort of the related

definition of similar words. Do you know of any other Florida

court authority that really hones in on the plain meaning of

these terms?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't, but I think that -- I have no

reason to believe that Mama Jo's isn't an accurate recitation

of Florida law, and I would note that in the plaintiff's

efforts to try to suggest that Mama Jo's got Florida law wrong,

the case that they came up with was the Azalea case which --

you know, which doesn't support their position in any way.

So you know, in Plaintiff's brief at nine -- on page

nine in their opposition brief, Plaintiff states Azalea stands

for the proposition that all that is required is the physical

presence of something in the covered structure that prohibits

operation of the business, and Azalea doesn't say that.

And I guess I would also point out that statement

raises at least two issues. First, in this particular case,

Planet Fitness doesn't even allege there is anything on the

premises, right. So even if that were what Azalea said, that

wouldn't help them here because the claims are very clearly for

economic losses related to COVID rather than any losses related

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 10 of 34
 11

to their having to deal with the substance on the premises,

okay. So that's the first issue raised by the statement they

made in an effort to support their case of Azalea. 

The second is Azalea doesn't say what they say what

they represent it says, and there was a specific finding in

Azalea that there was physical damage to the bacteria colony

that they were talking about. So there is direct physical

damage in that particular case.

And in referring back again to Mama Jo's which has

been read in any number of decisions by -- in this district as

supporting the position that the presence of virus just doesn't

support a finding of direct physical loss or damage.

And the -- the other way that -- in their papers that

Plaintiff's counsel tries to distinguish -- tries to

distinguish the Mama Jo's decision is to suggest that the

distinction that the Court is making is that in Mama Jo's,

there was no actual suspension of the operations of the

property. And actually last night, we got a supplemental

authority from a decision in Alabama which also cites this Mama

Jo's for that proposition, and I would respectfully submit

that -- I agree with the reading of the plaintiff of the case,

that the Alabama case does state that Mama Jo's reached the

decision it did because of the absence of a suspension;

however, I would respectfully submit that the Alabama case just

gets it wrong.

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 11 of 34
 12

And if you review -- even a cursory review of the

Mama Jo's decision demonstrates that there clearly is initial

finding that the -- that the dust and debris does not -- and

the cleaning does not constitute a direct physical loss or

damage sufficient to trigger coverage. And again, any number

of cases in this district have ruled consistently with that --

with that reading of the case.

In fact, in the Mama Jo's decision on page nine,

there is the discussion, they say, these are -- when they are

talking about the cleaning, they are saying, "These are not

tangible physical losses but economic losses" which is the

exact same situation you have here.

And then the next paragraph, the transition paragraph

says, "Even if the court were to adopt a more expansive

definition of direct physical loss or damage," and then the

court goes into the discussion that there is no suspension of

operations, okay.

So it's clear that Mama Jo's, that the Eleventh

Circuit in that decision is saying, look, this just is not a

direct physical loss and it is not sufficient to trigger

coverage, and that's the same -- and that is the same issue

that we are faced with here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Sullivan, I'm aware that the Supreme

Court recently denied cert in Mama Jo's; is that your

understanding?

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 12 of 34
 13

MR. SULLIVAN: That is my understanding.

THE COURT: Are there any other cases currently

pending at the cert stage before the supreme court that could

concern this issue?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not that I'm aware of. That's

something that -- I haven't looked at that level, Your Honor,

but I will take -- we will get back to you on that point. I

don't believe so.

THE COURT: So you are not relying on any exclusions

in the policies, as I understand it, your argument is strictly

with respect to the threshold affirmative grant of coverage.

MR. SULLIVAN: There has to be an order to get to

even talk about the exclusions, then you have to meet the

threshold requirement for coverage first, and Planet Fitness's

claims don't get there based on the allegations in the

complaint; so no, we are not relying on any exclusions. 

And again, in an effort to distinguish the Mama Jo's

case, Plaintiffs, again they cite Azalea which doesn't help.

And I would respectfully submit that their characterization of

Mama Jo's is inaccurate, it is imprecise and refer the Court to

the sections of the case that I referred to. 

And then the rest of the brief is really dedicated

and all of the supplementary authority that they pointed to is

directed to discussion to what I -- those decisions are

outliers. There are cases out there where there has been

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 13 of 34
 14

determination that there is physical damage sufficient; and I

would respectfully submit that, you know, the vast majority of

the cases go the insurer's way. There are a few that have gone

in the other direction, and I think those cases are just flat

out wrong, and they are wrong for the reasons we already

discussed in terms both in the what the words of the policy

mean and how the coverage works.

THE COURT: And in Florida courts specifically, are

there any cases in the State of Florida that have ruled in

favor of insureds in the context of COVID-19 business

interruption cases specifically?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure Mr. Blood will correct me.

I have one, all right, and there was one order and I can get

you the cite for it, but it is an order that denied a motion to

dismiss, but however there was -- there was no order in terms

of the reasoning of the order that went with it. It was just a

simple state court denial of the motion to dismiss without any

explanation. And I can get --

THE COURT: Mr. Blood, do you have that citation

handy?

MR. BLOOD: I don't.

Mr. O'Reardon, if you do, feel free to speak up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think I have got it and if there

is -- I'm not trying to sandbag you, I only have one, but

it's -- the cite I have got is the case is Johnston Jewelers.

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 14 of 34
 15

THE COURT: Can you spell that for the court

reporter, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah, J-O-H-N-S-T-O-N, Jewelers,

J-E-W-E-L-E-R-S, Inc. versus Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company,

J-E-W-E-L-E-R-S, Mutual Insurance Company; and that's just a

Westlaw cite, 2020 Westlaw, W-L, 6556842.

THE COURT: So you are saying there is no reasoning

that accompanies that order.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was just my -- I don't have it

right in front of me. My notes and recollection are that it

was just "motion denied" and that was the end of it. And I

have mentioned too many times already, obviously, there are any

number of decisions that go in the direction of making the

determination that there is no direct physical loss or damage.

THE COURT: I'm aware of that certainly, though I

want to be aware as much as I can of any developments in

Florida law specifically, so that's why I ask.

Okay, anything further, Mr. Sullivan, on your

argument this morning?

MR. SULLIVAN: Just very briefly, Your Honor. There

also was a claim under the civil authority coverage, and the

claims under the civil authority coverage fail for the same

reasons and one other. And the reason with respect to the

civil authority coverage, you know, the -- the coverage

specifically states that we will pay for the business income

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 15 of 34
 16

loss you sustain caused by action of civil authority that

prohibits access due to direct physical loss or damage to

property other than at the described premises. So there is

that same requirement of direct physical loss or damage which

is a requirement that the plaintiff can't meet with respect to

their own property or any other. There is no specific

allegation that there is anything that would constitute direct

physical loss or damage for the same reasons that I have

already articulated. Unless you have questions on that issue,

I'm not going to go into that any further.

And the other reason is you have the requirement that

the action of civil authority needs to prohibit access, and

that isn't what is alleged here. What is alleged here is that

the business -- that business operations ceased, and that is a

different issue that prohibition of access. Was access

impacted, yes. But were the plaintiffs able to access their

property, they weren't -- I'm sorry, they were. 

And there are a couple cases that Mama case out the

Florida and Pappy's case which are cited in our papers which

support that position that -- what you are talking about again

here is a property insurance policy, and so where the only

allegations are that there is a suspension of business and not

a prohibition of access, that is insufficient to trigger the

civil authority coverage provision in the policy.

THE COURT: Would it make any difference to your

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 16 of 34
 17

argument if there had been a prohibition on access?

MR. SULLIVAN: There has to be a causal relationship

to direct physical damage, Your Honor, so I think no because

there has to be the causal relationship; and since there is no

direct physical loss or damage, I don't think there is any

argument that the civil authority coverage here meets all of

the elements of the cover, so no, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

Let's turn now to Plaintiff's Counsel.

Mr. O'Reardon, are you going to be taking the lead? I can't

remember if you had volunteered for that.

MR. BLOOD: I will not be taking the lead, Mr. Blood

will be.

THE COURT: Okay, excellent, thank you.

MR. BLOOD: So here we have a business interruption

and civil authority all risk policy. An all risk policy is a

policy that covers, as the name implies, all risks unless

explicitly excluded from the policy. These types of

policies -- not this one, but these types of policies do

contain virus and pandemic exclusions. This policy does not.

So the question is: Does the physical presence of COVID

possibly in the gym most likely and certainly all around the

gymnasiums render them unsafe for use or the governmental

authorities that closed these gyms down and be prevented their

use trigger the policies?

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 17 of 34
 18

Now what Atlantic Specialty does is they say, well --

and they correctly point to the clause "direct physical loss of

or damage to the property," but then they conflate "direct

physical loss of and damage to the property." And they want to

read it together, but there is an "or" in between there,

"direct physical loss of the property or damage to the

property." 

As Mr. Sullivan argued the issue, you will notice

that all of the examples he used were examples where there was

damage to the property, and therefore the policy was either

triggered or not triggered. And he avoided the direct physical

loss of the property. In fact, Mama Jo's, which is the case

they primarily rely on, never interpreted the physical loss

portion of that clause; instead, it only addressed the "damage

to" clause. And of course, Mama Jo's is distinguishable

otherwise because unlike the businesses here, Mama Jo's fully

operated as normal at full capacity during the time of the

alleged loss. So I don't think Mama Jo's really has many much

to do with this case at all.

So let's look at what "direct physical loss of the

property" means. There are two types of coverage, as

Mr. Sullivan described, the civil authority coverage and the

business interruption coverage. And I think either one is

triggered here. Either the physical presence of COVID

prevented the gym from being used which is why people weren't

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 18 of 34
 19

using gyms and gyms in particular or -- and a number of cases

have held that in these types of policies, both provisions

apply -- the civil authority, the orders by the government

saying that gymnasiums and similar businesses cannot be used

because of the presence of COVID in the area shut them down.

COVID is obviously something physical. It prevents the

physical use of the business for its intended purpose. The

policy would be meaningless if all it meant was, under the

civil authority coverage, you -- if you have access to it,

there is no coverage even though your business is shut down.

You can have access to all sorts of businesses, but

if you can't run the business, it doesn't do you any good which

is why one has an all risk insurance policy.

I also disagreed with Mr. Sullivan that there are no

cases that go Plaintiff's way. In fact, there are many, many

cases that go Plaintiff's way. About half of the cases issued

by state courts nationwide have gone in favor of plaintiffs,

and something less than half in federal court have gone in

favor of plaintiffs.

I would direct the Court --

THE COURT: I'm not sure, you know, that quite

captures of the state of the law at least in federal court.

But focusing on Florida specifically, other than Azalea and

this one other order that was discussed this morning, are you

aware of any other Florida cases besides that perhaps also the

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 19 of 34
 20

decisions in Mama Jo's? I know those are not in the COVID

context specifically, but trying to focus in on the universe of

Florida applicable law, would you add anything to those cases?

MR. BLOOD: I believe there is a Middle District of

Florida case.

Mr. O'Reardon, do you have the cite right there? I

think you do, if you can grab it.

THE COURT: I think it is a like a urogynecology

case, perhaps.

MR. O'REARDON: That's exactly correct, 

Your Honor. It's Urogynocology Specialists versus Sentinel, 

489 F. Supp. 3d, 1297, and its --

THE COURT: In that case, there was an issue with the

policy wasn't even provided to the court, isn't that right, at

the stage at which the court was addressing the question?

MR. BLOOD: Yeah, you know, candidly, it's not -- I

think the court may have even commented on the poor briefing by

the defense counsel. So I do agree that there is -- and there

is not a lot of cases that are directly -- there are no cases

in Florida directly on point other than the state court case

and arguably the Middle District of Florida case. I'm not sure

either of those candidly are all that helpful other than by the

result reached which is why I think a thorough analysis that

was not under Florida law but it was the same policy language

is the in the In Re: Society Insurance Company MDL litigation

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 20 of 34
 21

pending in the Northern District of Illinois. It goes by the

name of Valley Lodge Corporation versus Society. I think that

is an opinion that is carefully done that reflects our position

as well, and the policy language is the same. Granted that was

not decided under Florida law, but it was the same policy

language.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Blood, I did note sort of taking

the policy in full context, there was a portion that describes

some definitions. I think it's -- defines the terms

"accidents" and then it says "direct physical loss as follows."

It provides five examples all of which were consistent with an

actual tangible alteration of the physical premises itself.

How do you deal with that?

MR. BLOOD: Well, I can -- two reasons, one it is an

all risk policy, so there are all risk policies that

specifically exclude pandemics and viruses, and this one is not

one of them. So by definition, an all risk policy, one errs on

the side of covering risk. But the other one is -- you know,

COVID is something physical and is present and causes the

dispossession of the property. The property can't be used for

its intended use, and I don't think any of those facts are

seriously disputed.

THE COURT: So are you alleging that COVID was

physically present in the gyms?

MR. BLOOD: Well, we don't know for sure if it was

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 21 of 34
 22

physically present in this gym. If the gyms were open and

people were in there, it would almost certainly be present

because it is a pandemic so somebody with COVID would likely

have been in the gym with it. But even if -- I don't think

that is a requirement. Certainly under the civil authority

provision, that would not be a requirement. The whole purpose

of the civil authority provision is something is happening

outside of the premises and a civil authority shuts down that

premises as a result.

THE COURT: But the "something that is happening

outside" nonetheless requires, as I understand it by the terms

of the policy, you know, physical loss or damage to the

property, so I don't know how you get away from that threshold

requirement whether you are traveling under either portion of

the policy. But again, than doesn't answer the threshold

question which is: What does physical loss of or damage to

property actually mean?

MR. BLOOD: Well, let's take the civil authority

example. So let's say there is a fire nearby, and the fire

department comes in and says, I'm shutting down this business,

everyone has to leave, you cannot operate this business. The

business is fine, it is standing there, it otherwise would be

operable, but either the fire department needs access to the

property to fight the other fire or the building is potentially

in peril but not actually burning down and physically damaged,

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 22 of 34
 23

that would be civil authority coverage. The civil authority

coverage would be kicked in because of the presence of

something else happening nearby and --

THE COURT: Yes, but I'm pretty sure in that context,

in the context of an active fire, there really wouldn't be much

argument that that neighboring property is not undergoing

damage, so to speak.

MR. BLOOD: But again, we are not arguing damage, we

are arguing physical loss of.

THE COURT: I take your point there.

Mr. Sullivan, how do you deal with that?

I have seen some other policies that have just the

"loss to property" language and aren't necessarily worded in

the disjunctive. So what is your response to that?

You are on mute.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was on a roll with the Zoom, sorry. 

So the same "direct physical loss of or damage to"

language is in Mama Jo's. I think it is in almost all of the

decisions that is we have discussed. The loss still needs to

be a physical loss, right?

The word "loss" versus "damage" allows for more

creative arguments because when you take it out of context, it

lends itself to a more expansive definition.

In some of the discussions that have reached

policyholder result, what they have done is they have strung

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 23 of 34
 24

the definitions of "loss," "direct loss" together, and then,

you know, they view them in isolation and suggest there is a

reasonable argument to be made there.

But when you put -- in the English language, you have

view words in context, right? This has to be a direct physical

loss or damage, and it has to -- and you have to read that in

the context of the policy that provides coverage for the cost

to replace stuff. It would give you money, when you take the

time to replace stuff. In that context, it just isn't

reasonable to read that language as providing for all economic

losses which you could maybe characterize as physical which is

the only way the insured can get there.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Blood.

MR. BLOOD: Yes, thank you.

I would just note that the policy language does not

say "physical loss to the property." It is "physical loss of

the property," or, or "damage to the property" because if one

reads "physical loss to the property," then it would mean that

the -- that the "damage to" provision is really superfluous.

They would essentially be saying the same thing. They are not

saying the same thing. The policy can't be interpreted as

saying the same thing. It is either the physical loss of the

property or damage to the property.

MR. SULLIVAN: By the way, if I said that, I

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 24 of 34
 25

misspoke. I wasn't trying to mischaracterize the language, but

I don't think that distinction changes the statement that I

made which it still has to be a "direct physical loss of," and

it just tortures the language to suggest that this is what this

is.

I mean, what we have here is an effort -- again, this

is a -- has had a dramatic effect on the economy, but it is an

attempt to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't

fit within the scope of coverage.

THE COURT: All right, thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Blood, anything further?

MR. BLOOD: I don't think so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to take five

minutes to review a couple of the cases discussed this morning,

and I'll be back online, so standby. It is 10:43, I'll be back

no later than 10:50.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BLOOD: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Break in the proceedings) 

THE COURT: All right, thank you everybody. The

Court is back in session. 

To recap, we are here on defendant's motion for

judgment on the pleadings, docket entry 28. The Court is

prepared to rule on that orally at this time, although I will

enter a post-hearing order briefly memorializing the reasoning.

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 25 of 34
 26

I don't know if the parties are aware, but I entered a related

order in another case presenting similar circumstances. It's

docket number 20-Civil-80749, it's Royal Palm Optical versus

State Farm. In there, I laid out much of what I'll say today;

but essentially, I don't think Plaintiff's reading the plain

language of the policy is supported, and so I do think judgment

in favor of Defendants is warranted.

I guess, first and foremost, the terms "direct

physical loss of or damage to the covered property," at best as

I can discern based on the plain meaning of those terms

requires actual tangible damage to the premises itself, not

strictly economic losses related to or arising out of the

property as it operates as a business more generally.

I think that reading is supported by the context of

the policy as a whole, including the definition of "direct

physical loss" on page 41 of docket entry 1-5. All of the

examples provided there are consistent with actual tangible

structural damage, so to speak, to the premises itself. And as

I read Plaintiff's complaint, there is nothing there that

alleges such physical loss of or damage to the covered

property. 

I'm also guided, of course, by the Mama Jo's decision

which is helpful; and there, I note the policy language was

similarly worded. It had that disjunctive terminology that is

at issue here.

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 26 of 34
 27

I also note the essentially overwhelming authority in

the federal courts that have addressed similar or identical

policy language and found as a threshold matter that coverage

isn't provided.

So for those reasons, the Court is going to grant the

defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. That I

believe will render moot, of course, the other pending motion

to certify the class.

One final note, I am truly sympathetic to the

overwhelming damage that this pandemic and resulting shut-down

orders have caused on the business community, but at the end of

the day, I'm constrained by the plain terms of the policy. And

respectfully, I think Plaintiff's reading just strains the

plain text of the policy beyond its natural meaning.

So thank you all for your very helpful advocacy.

Please await the Court's order following this hearing.

Any questions, Mr. Sullivan?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Your Honor; thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Blood?

MR. BLOOD: No, Your Honor; thank you for your time.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 10:54 a.m.) 

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 27 of 34
 28

C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E

 I hereby certify that the foregoing is 

 an accurate transcription of digitally recorded 

 proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the 

 best of my abilities. 

 This hearing occurred during the COVID-19

 pandemic and is therefore subject to the technological

 limitations of reporting remotely.

 

6/15/2021 /s/DIANE MILLER

 DATE DIANE MILLER, RMR, CRR 

 Official Court Reporter 

 United States District Court 

 101 South U.S. Highway 1 

 Fort Pierce, FL 34950 

 772-467-2337 

Thursday, April 8, 2021.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 28 of 34
 MR. BLOOD: [16] 3/8

 4/3 6/7 14/20 17/11

 17/14 20/3 20/15 21/13

 21/24 22/17 23/7 24/14

 25/11 25/17 27/19

 MR. O'REARDON:

 [1] 20/9

 MR. SULLIVAN: [21] 

 3/12 3/16 3/25 4/18 6/5

 6/11 6/23 10/8 12/25

 13/4 13/11 14/11 14/22

 15/2 15/8 15/19 17/1

 23/15 24/24 25/16 27/17

 MS. RENELLA: [1] 

 3/13

 THE COURT: [35] 

 THE COURTROOM

 DEPUTY: [1] 3/3

/

/s/DIANE [1] 28/10

0

01701 [1] 2/10

1

1-5 [1] 26/16

100 [1] 1/20

101 [2] 2/23 28/12

10:43 [1] 25/15

10:50 [1] 25/16

10:54 [1] 27/22

1297 [1] 20/12

1490 [1] 1/23

1600 [1] 2/4

161 [1] 2/9

1877 [1] 1/19

19 [4] 4/25 5/17 14/10

 28/6

2

20-81224 [1] 3/5

20-81224-CIV-CANNO

N [1] 1/3

20-Civil-80749 [1] 26/3

2020 [2] 4/15 15/6

2021 [2] 1/6 28/10

2337 [2] 2/24 28/13

28 [2] 4/14 25/23

3

33131 [1] 2/4

33432 [1] 1/20

34 [1] 1/8

34950 [2] 2/24 28/12

3d [1] 20/12

3rd [1] 2/3

4

4000 [1] 2/7

41 [1] 26/16

467-2337 [1] 2/24

489 [1] 20/12

5

500 [1] 2/6

501 [1] 1/23

502 [1] 2/10

55415 [1] 2/7

6

6/15/2021 [1] 28/10

6556842 [1] 15/6

7

772 [1] 2/24

772-467-2337 [1] 28/13

8

80749 [1] 26/3

81224 [1] 3/5

9

92101 [1] 1/24

A

a.m [1] 27/22

abilities [1] 28/5

able [1] 16/16

about [8] 8/14 8/21 9/1

 11/7 12/10 13/13 16/20

 19/16

above [1] 28/4

above-entitled [1] 28/4

absence [1] 11/23

access [10] 16/2 16/12

 16/15 16/15 16/16 16/23

 17/1 19/9 19/11 22/23

accidents [1] 21/10

accompanies [1] 15/8

accurate [2] 10/10 28/3

action [2] 16/1 16/12

active [1] 23/5

actual [7] 7/17 7/22

 8/20 11/17 21/12 26/11

 26/17

actually [3] 11/18 22/17

 22/25

ADAM [2] 1/18 3/10

add [1] 20/3

additionally [3] 3/21

 6/15 7/23

addressed [3] 7/15

 18/14 27/2

addressing [1] 20/15

ADJOURNED [1] 

 27/22

adjudication [1] 4/16

adopt [1] 12/14

advocacy [1] 27/15

affirmative [1] 13/11

again [9] 9/10 11/9 12/5

 13/17 13/18 16/20 22/15

 23/8 25/6

agree [2] 11/21 20/18

AILEEN [1] 1/13

al [1] 3/6

Alabama [3] 11/19

 11/22 11/24

all [32] 

allegation [2] 8/22 16/7

allegations [2] 13/15

 16/22

allege [3] 8/19 9/11

 10/22

alleged [3] 16/13 16/13

 18/18

alleges [1] 26/20

alleging [1] 21/23

allows [1] 23/21

almost [2] 22/2 23/18

alone [2] 8/20 9/12

along [1] 3/10

already [3] 14/5 15/12

 16/9

also [11] 3/19 4/8 5/19

 7/4 10/20 11/19 15/21

 19/14 19/25 26/22 27/1

alteration [1] 21/12

although [1] 25/24

am [4] 4/1 4/4 14/12

 27/9

analysis [1] 20/23

another [1] 26/2

answer [1] 22/15

any [29] 

anything [5] 10/22

 15/18 16/7 20/3 25/11

apologize [1] 6/12

appearance [1] 3/7

APPEARANCES [2] 

 1/17 2/1

appears [1] 4/14

applicable [2] 6/22 20/3

apply [1] 19/3

APRIL [1] 1/6

are [55] 

area [1] 19/5

aren't [1] 23/13

arguably [1] 20/21

argued [1] 18/8

arguing [4] 3/16 3/25

 23/8 23/9

argument [6] 13/10

 15/19 17/1 17/6 23/6

 24/3

arguments [1] 23/22

arising [1] 26/12

around [2] 5/12 17/22

articulated [1] 16/9

as [37] 

ask [1] 15/17

asks [1] 5/2

ATLANTIC [8] 1/7 3/6

 3/15 3/18 3/22 4/21 5/2

 18/1

attached [1] 6/18

attempt [1] 25/8

audio [1] 4/8

authorities [1] 17/24

authority [22] 6/16

 10/7 11/19 13/23 15/21

 15/22 15/24 16/1 16/12

 16/24 17/6 17/16 18/22

 19/3 19/9 22/5 22/7 22/8

 22/18 23/1 23/1 27/1

Avenue [2] 2/3 2/6

avoided [1] 18/11

await [1] 27/16

aware [6] 12/23 13/5

 15/15 15/16 19/25 26/1

away [1] 22/13

Azalea [9] 10/13 10/16

 10/19 10/23 11/3 11/4

 11/6 13/18 19/23

B

back [5] 11/9 13/7

 25/15 25/15 25/21

bacteria [1] 11/6

BALKAN [4] 1/18 1/19

 3/10 3/12

based [2] 13/15 26/10

be [36] 

because [13] 5/4 8/23

 9/6 9/16 10/24 11/23

 17/3 18/16 19/5 22/3

 23/2 23/22 24/18

becomes [1] 9/6

been [6] 6/17 9/17

 11/10 13/25 17/1 22/4

before [4] 1/13 4/20

 6/24 13/3

beginning [1] 3/7

begins [1] 8/6

behalf [2] 3/15 4/3

being [3] 4/7 8/16 18/25

believe [4] 10/10 13/8

 20/4 27/7

benefit [2] 4/10 5/11

besides [1] 19/25

best [3] 4/9 26/9 28/5

between [3] 7/20 7/21

 18/5

beyond [1] 27/14

BLOOD [12] 1/21 1/22

 3/9 3/11 4/5 14/12 14/19

 17/12 21/7 24/14 25/11

 27/19

Boca [1] 1/20

both [3] 4/8 14/6 19/2

Break [1] 25/19

brief [3] 10/15 10/16

 13/22

briefed [1] 4/15

briefing [1] 20/17

briefly [3] 9/20 15/20

 25/25

briefs [1] 6/17

Broadway [1] 1/23

brought [1] 8/21

building [2] 8/8 22/24

burning [1] 22/25

business [26] 6/3 6/13

 7/6 7/11 7/14 7/16 7/17

 7/18 7/22 9/24 10/19

 14/10 15/25 16/14 16/14

 16/22 17/15 18/23 19/7

 19/10 19/12 22/20 22/21

 22/22 26/13 27/11

businesses [3] 18/16

 19/4 19/11

C

C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-TE [1] 28/1

CA [1] 1/24

call [1] 3/2

called [1] 7/5

Calling [1] 3/5

came [1] 10/13

can [12] 3/7 4/9 6/7

 14/13 14/18 15/1 15/16

 19/11 20/7 21/14 24/12

 26/10

can't [5] 16/5 17/10

 19/12 21/20 24/22

candidly [2] 20/16

 20/22

CANNON [3] 1/3 1/13

 3/5

cannot [2] 19/4 22/21

capacity [1] 18/17

captures [1] 19/22

carefully [1] 21/3

Carrot [1] 5/14

case [27] 1/3 3/3 3/5

 5/19 9/10 10/13 10/13

 10/21 11/3 11/8 11/21

 11/22 11/24 12/7 13/18

 13/21 14/25 16/18 16/19

 18/12 18/19 20/5 20/9

 20/13 20/20 20/21 26/2

cases [18] 9/1 12/6 13/2

 13/25 14/3 14/4 14/9

 14/11 16/18 19/1 19/15

 19/16 19/16 19/25 20/3

 20/19 20/19 25/14

Casey [1] 3/21

category [1] 9/5

causal [4] 7/20 7/21

 17/2 17/4

cause [1] 5/17

caused [3] 7/23 16/1

 27/11

causes [1] 21/19

ceased [1] 16/14

cert [2] 12/24 13/3

certainly [5] 8/21 15/15

 17/22 22/2 22/5

certify [2] 27/8 28/2

change [1] 8/20

changes [1] 25/2

characterization [1] 

 13/19

characterize [1] 24/11

characterized [1] 5/15

Chase [1] 3/21

Chris [1] 3/21

CHRISTINE [3] 2/2

 3/13 3/14

Circuit [2] 9/15 12/19

circumstances [1] 26/2

citation [1] 14/19

cite [5] 13/18 14/14

 14/25 15/6 20/6

cited [1] 16/19

cites [2] 10/4 11/19

Thursday, April 8, 2021. 4/8/2021

Page 29

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 29 of 34 PF SUNSET VIEW vs. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INS. CO.
C

CIV [1] 1/3

civil [19] 6/16 15/21

 15/22 15/24 16/1 16/12

 16/24 17/6 17/16 18/22

 19/3 19/9 22/5 22/7 22/8

 22/18 23/1 23/1 26/3

claim [6] 5/3 5/20 7/1

 9/6 9/24 15/21

claims [4] 8/16 10/24

 13/15 15/22

class [1] 27/8

clause [3] 18/2 18/14

 18/15

clean [1] 9/13

cleaned [1] 9/23

cleaning [3] 10/1 12/4

 12/10

clear [3] 9/4 9/6 12/18

clearly [4] 4/9 9/25

 10/24 12/2

client [2] 4/21 4/22

closed [1] 17/24

Co [1] 3/16

Co-counsel [1] 3/16

collection [1] 7/21

colony [1] 11/6

comes [1] 22/20

commented [1] 20/17

commercial [2] 4/22

 5/1

community [1] 27/11

company [7] 1/7 3/6

 3/19 3/22 15/4 15/5

 20/25

compare [1] 8/14

complaint [7] 5/4 6/19

 8/19 8/22 9/11 13/16

 26/19

concern [1] 13/4

CONFERENCED [1] 

 1/12

conflate [1] 18/3

consistent [2] 21/11

 26/17

consistently [1] 12/6

constitute [3] 10/1 12/4

 16/7

constrained [1] 27/12

construction [2] 9/21

 9/22

cont'd [1] 2/1

contain [1] 17/20

context [12] 9/6 9/7

 14/10 20/2 21/8 23/4

 23/5 23/22 24/5 24/7

 24/9 26/14

Corporation [1] 21/2

correct [2] 14/12 20/10

correctly [2] 5/25 18/2

cost [2] 7/3 24/7

could [2] 13/3 24/11

counsel [7] 3/7 3/15

 3/16 6/11 11/14 17/9

 20/18

country [2] 5/10 5/12

couple [2] 16/18 25/14

course [4] 6/18 18/15

 26/22 27/7

court [31] 

Court's [1] 27/16

courts [4] 5/16 14/8

 19/17 27/2

cover [1] 17/7

coverage [38] 

covered [3] 10/18 26/9

 26/20

covering [1] 21/18

covers [1] 17/17

COVID [13] 4/25 5/17

 10/25 14/10 17/21 18/24

 19/5 19/6 20/1 21/19

 21/23 22/3 28/6

COVID-19 [4] 4/25

 5/17 14/10 28/6

CRC [1] 2/22

creative [2] 9/16 23/22

CRR [2] 2/22 28/10

currently [1] 13/2

cursory [1] 12/1

D

damage [43] 

damaged [3] 7/9 8/8

 22/25

DAN [2] 2/5 3/20

date [4] 8/6 8/7 8/8

 28/10

day [1] 27/12

deal [4] 5/12 11/1 21/13

 23/11

debris [2] 9/22 12/3

decided [2] 5/25 21/5

decision [13] 5/14 9/15

 9/16 9/17 9/18 10/4

 11/15 11/19 11/23 12/2

 12/8 12/19 26/22

decisions [9] 5/15 5/21

 5/25 10/5 11/10 13/24

 15/13 20/1 23/19

dedicated [1] 13/22

DEFENDANT [1] 2/2

defendant's [3] 4/13

 25/22 27/6

Defendants [2] 1/8 26/7

defense [1] 20/18

defined [2] 8/5 8/6

defines [1] 21/9

definition [8] 6/13 6/14

 7/16 10/6 12/15 21/17

 23/23 26/15

definitions [2] 21/9

 24/1

demonstrated [1] 7/21

demonstrates [1] 12/2

demonstration [1] 8/17

denial [1] 14/17

denied [3] 12/24 14/14

 15/11

department [2] 22/20

 22/23

described [2] 16/3

 18/22

describes [1] 21/8

determination [2] 14/1

 15/14

developments [1] 15/16

diane [4] 2/22 2/25

 28/10 28/10

did [6] 5/4 5/6 6/10

 6/12 11/23 21/7

Diego [1] 1/24

difference [1] 16/25

different [2] 4/23 16/15

digitally [1] 28/3

diligence [1] 8/12

direct [34] 

directed [1] 13/24

direction [2] 14/4 15/13

directly [2] 20/19 20/20

disagreed [1] 19/14

discern [1] 26/10

discussed [4] 14/6

 19/24 23/19 25/14

discussion [4] 6/21 12/9

 12/16 13/24

discussions [1] 23/24

disjunctive [2] 23/14

 26/24

dismiss [2] 14/15 14/17

dispatch [1] 8/13

dispossession [1] 21/20

dispute [1] 5/13

disputed [1] 21/22

distinction [2] 11/16

 25/2

distinguish [3] 11/14

 11/15 13/17

distinguishable [1] 

 18/15

district [13] 1/1 1/1

 1/14 2/23 5/12 5/22 9/17

 11/10 12/6 20/4 20/21

 21/1 28/11

DIVISION [1] 1/2

do [13] 4/8 10/6 14/19

 14/22 17/19 18/19 19/12

 20/6 20/7 20/18 21/13

 23/11 26/6

docket [4] 4/14 25/23

 26/3 26/16

does [11] 5/3 5/17 10/1

 11/22 12/3 12/4 17/20

 17/21 18/1 22/16 24/16

doesn't [13] 8/19 9/4

 9/7 9/11 10/14 10/19

 10/22 11/4 11/11 13/18

 19/12 22/15 25/8

don't [16] 4/18 10/9

 13/8 13/15 14/21 15/9

 17/5 18/18 21/21 21/25

 22/4 22/13 25/2 25/12

 26/1 26/5

done [2] 21/3 23/25

down [7] 17/24 19/5

 19/10 22/8 22/20 22/25

 27/10

dramatic [1] 25/7

due [3] 7/18 8/12 16/2

during [3] 7/19 18/17

 28/6

dust [4] 9/22 9/22 10/1

 12/3

E

each [1] 5/22

economic [6] 4/25 5/10

 10/25 12/11 24/10 26/12

economy [1] 25/7

effect [2] 5/10 25/7

effort [3] 11/3 13/17

 25/6

efforts [1] 10/12

either [7] 18/10 18/23

 18/24 20/22 22/14 22/23

 24/23

element [5] 7/5 7/5 7/6

 7/8 8/11

elements [2] 8/1 17/7

Eleventh [2] 9/15 12/18

else [1] 23/3

end [3] 6/16 15/11

 27/11

English [1] 24/4

enter [1] 25/25

entered [1] 26/1

entities [2] 4/23 4/24

entitled [2] 8/9 28/4

entry [3] 4/14 25/23

 26/16

errs [1] 21/17

ESQ [6] 1/18 1/21 1/22

 2/2 2/5 2/8

essentially [4] 6/22

 24/21 26/5 27/1

et [1] 3/5

even [14] 8/19 8/25 9/2

 9/6 9/11 10/22 10/23

 12/1 12/14 13/13 19/10

 20/14 20/17 22/4

every [1] 9/17

everybody [2] 6/7

 25/20

everyone [1] 22/21

exact [1] 12/12

exactly [1] 20/10

example [3] 8/5 8/15

 22/19

examples [4] 18/9 18/9

 21/11 26/17

excellent [3] 4/5 6/9

 17/14

excerpted [1] 6/17

exclude [1] 21/16

excluded [1] 17/18

exclusions [4] 13/9

 13/13 13/16 17/20

exists [1] 9/10

expansive [2] 12/14

 23/23

explain [1] 5/24

explanation [1] 14/18

explicitly [1] 17/18

extent [2] 7/1 7/10

F

faced [1] 12/22

facilitate [1] 6/21

facility [2] 7/2 8/15

fact [3] 12/8 18/12

 19/15

facts [3] 5/4 9/20 21/21

fail [1] 15/22

fall [1] 9/4

Farm [1] 26/4

favor [4] 14/10 19/17

 19/19 26/7

federal [4] 1/19 19/18

 19/22 27/2

feel [1] 14/22

few [1] 14/3

fight [1] 22/24

filed [1] 4/15

final [1] 27/9

finding [3] 11/5 11/12

 12/3

fine [1] 22/22

fire [11] 7/2 7/3 7/11

 7/13 8/7 8/15 22/19

 22/19 22/23 22/24 23/5

first [4] 10/21 11/2

 13/14 26/8

fit [1] 25/9

Fitness [7] 4/23 4/24

 5/3 7/2 7/10 8/16 10/22

Fitness's [2] 5/20 13/14

five [2] 21/11 25/13

FL [4] 1/20 2/4 2/24

 28/12

flat [1] 14/4

floor [1] 4/11

FLORIDA [22] 1/1 1/5

 4/23 5/11 10/2 10/3 10/5

 10/6 10/11 10/12 14/8

 14/9 15/17 16/19 19/23

 19/25 20/3 20/5 20/20

 20/21 20/24 21/5

flsd.uscourts.gov [1] 

 2/25

focus [1] 20/2

focusing [1] 19/23

following [1] 27/16

follows [2] 5/15 21/10

foregoing [1] 28/2

foremost [1] 26/8

FORT [4] 1/2 1/5 2/24

 28/12

found [1] 27/3

four [1] 4/23

Framingham [1] 2/10

Francisco [1] 3/21

free [1] 14/22

front [1] 15/10

full [2] 18/17 21/8

fully [2] 4/15 18/16

further [3] 15/18 16/10

 25/11

Thursday, April 8, 2021. 4/8/2021

Page 30

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 30 of 34 PF SUNSET VIEW vs. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INS. CO.
G

get [8] 9/9 13/7 13/12

 13/15 14/13 14/18 22/13

 24/12

gets [1] 11/25

give [1] 24/8

Glass [1] 3/2

go [7] 5/21 5/22 14/3

 15/13 16/10 19/15 19/16

goes [2] 12/16 21/1

going [10] 3/16 3/25 4/2

 5/22 6/1 6/15 16/10

 17/10 25/13 27/5

gone [3] 14/3 19/17

 19/18

good [8] 3/2 3/4 3/9

 3/11 3/14 3/17 4/6 19/12

got [4] 10/12 11/18

 14/23 14/25

government [1] 19/3

governmental [1] 17/23

grab [1] 20/7

grant [2] 13/11 27/5

Granted [1] 21/4

guess [2] 10/20 26/8

guided [1] 26/22

gym [4] 17/22 18/25

 22/1 22/4

gymnasiums [2] 17/23

 19/4

gyms [5] 17/24 19/1

 19/1 21/24 22/1

H

had [5] 5/9 17/1 17/11

 25/7 26/24

half [2] 19/16 19/18

handy [1] 14/20

happening [3] 22/7

 22/10 23/3

has [18] 5/9 5/11 6/17

 8/17 9/16 9/17 11/9

 13/12 13/25 17/2 17/4

 18/18 19/13 22/21 24/5

 24/6 25/3 25/7

has to [1] 24/6

have [40] 

haven't [1] 13/6

having [1] 11/1

he [2] 18/9 18/11

hearing [8] 1/12 3/19

 3/23 4/13 6/11 25/25

 27/16 28/6

heavily [1] 9/14

held [1] 19/2

help [2] 10/24 13/18

helpful [3] 20/22 26/23

 27/15

here [21] 4/7 4/12 5/13

 5/19 5/23 7/15 8/14 8/16

 10/24 12/12 12/22 16/13

 16/13 16/21 17/6 17/15

 18/16 18/24 25/6 25/22

 26/25

hereby [1] 28/2

Highway [3] 1/19 2/23

 28/12

hole [1] 25/8

hones [1] 10/7

Honor [20] 3/4 3/9 3/17

 4/1 4/4 4/19 5/20 6/25

 8/14 12/22 13/6 15/20

 17/3 17/7 20/11 25/12

 25/17 25/18 27/18 27/20

HONORABLE [1] 

 1/13

hoping [1] 6/1

how [4] 14/7 21/13

 22/13 23/11

however [4] 5/23 6/12

 11/24 14/15

Hurst [1] 1/22

I

I'll [3] 25/15 25/15 26/4

I'm [17] 3/15 5/22 6/1

 6/15 12/23 13/5 14/24

 15/15 16/10 16/17 19/21

 20/21 22/20 23/4 25/13

 26/22 27/12

identical [1] 27/2

Illinois [1] 21/1

impacted [1] 16/16

implies [1] 17/17

imprecise [1] 13/20

inaccurate [1] 13/20

Inc [1] 15/4

including [3] 5/10 7/6

 26/15

income [7] 7/9 7/12

 7/18 7/22 8/10 9/9 15/25

initial [1] 12/2

instead [1] 18/14

insufficient [1] 16/23

insurance [12] 1/7 3/6

 3/19 4/22 5/1 5/5 7/1

 15/4 15/5 16/21 19/13

 20/25

insured [2] 7/25 24/12

insureds [1] 14/10

insurer [1] 6/25

insurer's [1] 14/3

Intact [1] 3/22

intended [2] 19/7 21/21

interpret [1] 9/1

interpreted [2] 18/13

 24/22

interruption [11] 6/4

 6/13 7/7 7/11 7/15 7/16

 7/17 9/24 14/11 17/15

 18/23

is [134] 

isn't [9] 8/18 8/21 8/24

 9/18 10/10 16/13 20/14

 24/9 27/4

isolation [3] 8/25 9/4

 24/2

issue [12] 5/8 5/15 5/19

 5/24 11/2 12/21 13/4

 16/9 16/15 18/8 20/13

 26/25

issued [1] 19/16

issues [3] 5/13 5/24

 10/21

it [68] 

it's [7] 12/18 14/25

 20/11 20/16 21/9 26/2

 26/3

its [5] 9/23 19/7 20/12

 21/21 27/14

itself [4] 21/12 23/23

 26/11 26/18

J

J-E-W-E-L-E-R-S [2] 

 15/4 15/5

J-O-H-N-S-T-O-N [1] 

 15/3

January [1] 5/14

Jewelers [3] 14/25 15/3

 15/4

Jim [1] 3/20

Jo's [24] 9/14 9/20 9/24

 10/4 10/10 10/12 11/9

 11/15 11/16 11/20 11/22

 12/2 12/8 12/18 12/24

 13/17 13/20 18/12 18/15

 18/16 18/18 20/1 23/18

 26/22

Johnston [1] 14/25

JUDGE [3] 1/14 5/14

 5/16

judgment [5] 4/13 4/21

 25/23 26/6 27/6

just [20] 6/2 6/22 9/4

 9/6 9/25 11/11 11/24

 12/19 14/4 14/16 15/5

 15/9 15/11 15/20 23/12

 24/9 24/16 25/4 25/8

 27/13

just my [1] 15/9

K

kicked [1] 23/2

know [16] 9/12 10/4

 10/6 10/14 10/15 14/2

 15/24 19/21 20/1 20/16

 21/18 21/25 22/12 22/13

 24/2 26/1

known [1] 7/4

L

laid [1] 26/4

language [15] 8/25 9/3

 20/24 21/4 21/6 23/13

 23/18 24/4 24/10 24/16

 25/1 25/4 26/6 26/23

 27/3

last [1] 11/18

later [1] 25/16

law [10] 5/3 10/2 10/4

 10/11 10/12 15/17 19/22

 20/3 20/24 21/5

lawyering [1] 9/16

lead [3] 4/2 17/10 17/12

least [2] 10/21 19/22

leave [1] 22/21

lends [1] 23/23

less [1] 19/18

let [2] 8/20 9/11

let's [4] 17/9 18/20

 22/18 22/19

level [1] 13/6

like [2] 5/23 20/8

likely [2] 17/22 22/3

limitations [1] 28/8

listening [2] 3/19 3/23

litigation [1] 20/25

LLC [2] 1/4 3/5

LLP [5] 1/19 2/3 2/6

 2/9 3/18

local [1] 3/15

Lodge [1] 21/2

look [6] 7/14 8/25 9/3

 9/5 12/19 18/20

looked [1] 13/6

loss [52] 

losses [8] 4/25 9/19

 10/25 10/25 12/11 12/11

 24/11 26/12

lost [1] 8/9

lot [1] 20/19

Love [1] 5/14

M

MA [1] 2/10

made [7] 8/16 9/18 9/22

 9/24 11/3 24/3 25/3

majority [1] 14/2

make [2] 9/7 16/25

making [3] 6/25 11/16

 15/13

Mama [25] 9/14 9/20

 9/24 10/4 10/10 10/12

 11/9 11/15 11/16 11/19

 11/22 12/2 12/8 12/18

 12/24 13/17 13/20 16/18

 18/12 18/15 18/16 18/18

 20/1 23/18 26/22

many [4] 15/12 18/18

 19/15 19/15

MARK [1] 1/18

matter [3] 5/3 27/3 28/4

may [1] 20/17

maybe [2] 10/4 24/11

MDL [1] 20/25

me [3] 6/1 14/12 15/10

mean [4] 14/7 22/17

 24/19 25/6

meaning [3] 10/7 26/10

 27/14

meaningless [1] 19/8

means [1] 18/21

meant [1] 19/8

meet [4] 5/5 8/1 13/13

 16/5

meets [1] 17/6

memorializing [1] 

 25/25

mentioned [1] 15/12

mere [1] 10/1

Miami [2] 2/4 9/21

microphone [1] 4/11

Middle [2] 20/4 20/21

MILLEA [2] 2/5 3/20

miller [4] 2/22 2/25

 28/10 28/10

Minneapolis [1] 2/7

minute [1] 9/2

minutes [1] 25/14

mischaracterize [1] 

 25/1

misspoke [1] 25/1

MN [1] 2/7

money [1] 24/8

moot [1] 27/7

more [6] 9/6 10/5 12/14

 23/21 23/23 26/13

morning [12] 3/2 3/4

 3/9 3/11 3/14 3/17 3/25

 4/6 4/12 15/19 19/24

 25/14

morning's [1] 6/21

most [1] 17/22

motion [13] 1/12 3/25

 4/13 4/13 4/17 4/20 4/21

 14/14 14/17 15/11 25/22

 27/6 27/7

Mr [2] 3/12 15/18

Mr. [25] 3/11 3/11 3/24

 4/5 4/17 6/10 10/3 12/23

 14/12 14/19 14/22 17/8

 17/10 17/12 18/8 18/22

 19/14 20/6 21/7 23/11

 24/14 25/10 25/11 27/17

 27/19

Mr. Blood [9] 3/11 4/5

 14/12 14/19 17/12 21/7

 24/14 25/11 27/19

Mr. O'Reardon [4] 

 3/11 14/22 17/10 20/6

Mr. Sullivan [12] 3/24

 4/17 6/10 10/3 12/23

 17/8 18/8 18/22 19/14

 23/11 25/10 27/17

Ms [1] 3/2

much [4] 15/16 18/18

 23/5 26/4

must [1] 7/23

mute [2] 4/11 23/15

Mutual [2] 15/4 15/5

my [7] 3/20 4/20 4/22

 13/1 15/9 15/10 28/5

N

name [2] 17/17 21/2

nationwide [1] 19/17

natural [1] 27/14

nearby [3] 9/21 22/19

 23/3

nearly [1] 5/16

necessarily [1] 23/13

necessary [1] 7/18

needed [1] 9/23

needs [7] 7/20 8/1 8/2

 8/3 16/12 22/23 23/19

neighboring [1] 23/6

never [1] 18/13

next [2] 6/15 12/13

Thursday, April 8, 2021. 4/8/2021

Page 31

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 31 of 34 PF SUNSET VIEW vs. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INS. CO.
N

night [1] 11/18

nine [3] 10/15 10/16

 12/8

no [19] 1/3 9/5 10/9

 11/17 12/16 13/16 14/15

 15/7 15/14 16/6 17/3

 17/4 17/7 19/10 19/14

 20/19 25/16 27/18 27/20

none [1] 9/10

nonetheless [1] 22/11

normal [1] 18/17

Northern [1] 21/1

not [39] 

note [7] 8/4 10/11 21/7

 24/16 26/23 27/1 27/9

noted [1] 4/20

notes [1] 15/10

nothing [1] 26/19

notice [1] 18/8

November [1] 4/15

now [2] 17/9 18/1

number [8] 4/14 5/11

 5/21 11/10 12/5 15/13

 19/1 26/3

number 28 [1] 4/14

O

O'REARDON [7] 1/22

 1/22 3/10 3/11 14/22

 17/10 20/6

obtain [1] 7/25

obviously [2] 15/12

 19/6

occurred [1] 28/6

off [1] 4/18

office [1] 3/21

Official [2] 2/22 28/11

okay [9] 4/2 7/13 7/24

 8/13 11/2 12/17 15/18

 17/8 17/14

one [15] 14/13 14/13

 14/24 15/23 17/19 18/23

 19/13 19/24 21/14 21/16

 21/17 21/17 21/18 24/18

 27/9

online [1] 25/15

only [4] 14/24 16/21

 18/14 24/12

open [1] 22/1

operable [1] 22/23

operate [1] 22/21

operated [1] 18/17

operates [1] 26/13

operation [1] 10/19

operations [4] 7/19

 11/17 12/17 16/14

opinion [1] 21/3

opposing [1] 6/10

opposition [1] 10/16

Optical [1] 26/3

orally [1] 25/24

order [12] 5/24 7/24

 13/12 14/13 14/14 14/15

 14/16 15/8 19/24 25/25

 26/2 27/16

orders [3] 5/12 19/3

 27/11

other [17] 10/6 11/13

 13/2 14/4 15/23 16/3

 16/6 16/11 19/23 19/24

 19/25 20/20 20/22 21/18

 22/24 23/12 27/7

otherwise [2] 18/16

 22/22

our [7] 3/20 4/10 5/21

 9/14 9/16 16/19 21/3

out [8] 4/12 10/20 13/25

 14/5 16/18 23/22 26/4

 26/12

outliers [1] 13/25

outside [2] 22/8 22/11

overwhelming [2] 27/1

 27/10

own [1] 16/6

P

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-GS [1] 3/1

page [3] 10/15 12/8

 26/16

PAGES [1] 1/8

Palm [1] 26/3

pandemic [6] 4/25 5/9

 17/20 22/3 27/10 28/7

pandemics [1] 21/16

papers [4] 5/21 9/14

 11/13 16/19

Pappy's [1] 16/19

paragraph [2] 12/13

 12/13

Pardon [1] 6/1

parent [1] 3/22

Parr [1] 3/21

part [1] 9/16

particular [3] 10/21

 11/8 19/1

particularly [1] 9/15

parties [1] 26/1

partners [1] 3/20

Patterson [1] 1/19

PAUL [3] 2/8 3/16 3/17

pay [1] 15/25

peg [1] 25/8

pending [3] 13/3 21/1

 27/7

people [2] 18/25 22/2

perhaps [2] 19/25 20/9

peril [1] 22/25

period [12] 6/14 7/9

 7/12 7/19 8/4 8/6 8/8

 8/10 8/11 9/8 9/9 9/12

permit [1] 6/20

PF [1] 1/4

PH [1] 3/5

physical [54] 

physically [3] 21/24

 22/1 22/25

PIERCE [4] 1/2 1/5

 2/24 28/12

plain [5] 10/7 26/5

 26/10 27/12 27/14

plaintiff [5] 1/18 3/8

 10/16 11/21 16/5

plaintiff's [9] 10/11

 10/15 11/14 17/9 19/15

 19/16 26/5 26/19 27/13

plaintiffs [7] 1/5 3/10

 4/3 13/18 16/16 19/17

 19/19

Planet [9] 4/23 4/24 5/3

 5/20 7/2 7/10 8/16 10/22

 13/14

pleadings [4] 4/14 4/22

 25/23 27/6

please [7] 3/2 3/8 4/7

 4/8 4/11 15/2 27/16

point [6] 10/3 10/20

 13/7 18/2 20/20 23/10

pointed [2] 9/17 13/23

policies [13] 5/1 5/7

 5/24 6/18 6/25 7/1 13/10

 17/19 17/19 17/25 19/2

 21/15 23/12

policy [40] 

policyholder [1] 23/25

poor [1] 20/17

portion [3] 18/14 21/8

 22/14

position [4] 10/14 11/11

 16/20 21/3

possibly [1] 17/22

post [1] 25/25

post-hearing [1] 25/25

potentially [1] 22/24

PowerPoint [1] 6/21

premises [10] 8/20 8/23

 10/23 11/1 16/3 21/12

 22/8 22/9 26/11 26/18

prepared [1] 25/24

presence [6] 10/18

 11/11 17/21 18/24 19/5

 23/2

present [5] 9/11 21/19

 21/24 22/1 22/2

presentation [1] 6/16

presenting [1] 26/2

pretty [1] 23/4

prevented [2] 17/24

 18/25

prevents [1] 19/6

primarily [1] 18/13

prior [1] 6/11

proceeding [1] 4/8

proceedings [3] 25/19

 27/22 28/4

prohibit [1] 16/12

prohibition [4] 4/7

 16/15 16/23 17/1

prohibits [2] 10/18 16/2

property [40] 

proposition [2] 10/17

 11/20

provide [2] 7/3 9/19

provided [6] 4/22 8/5

 8/15 20/14 26/17 27/4

provides [6] 7/4 7/8

 7/17 9/8 21/11 24/7

providing [1] 24/10

provision [4] 16/24

 22/6 22/7 24/20

provisions [3] 6/23 9/2

 19/2

purpose [2] 19/7 22/6

put [2] 24/4 25/8

Q

question [3] 17/21

 20/15 22/16

questions [2] 16/9

 27/17

quite [1] 19/21

R

raised [1] 11/2

raises [1] 10/21

rather [1] 10/25

Raton [1] 1/20

Re [1] 20/25

reached [3] 11/22 20/23

 23/24

read [5] 11/10 18/5

 24/6 24/10 26/19

reading [5] 11/21 12/7

 26/5 26/14 27/13

reads [1] 24/19

really [5] 10/7 13/22

 18/18 23/5 24/20

reason [4] 7/7 10/10

 15/23 16/11

reasonable [2] 24/3

 24/10

reasoning [3] 14/16

 15/7 25/25

reasons [5] 14/5 15/23

 16/8 21/14 27/5

recap [1] 25/22

recent [1] 5/14

recently [1] 12/24

recitation [1] 10/10

recollection [1] 15/10

recorded [1] 28/3

recording [1] 4/7

refer [2] 6/24 13/20

referred [4] 7/6 7/7

 8/10 13/21

referring [1] 11/9

reflects [1] 21/3

regularly [1] 9/24

reiteration [1] 6/22

related [7] 4/25 9/25

 10/5 10/25 10/25 26/1

 26/12

relationship [3] 7/20

 17/2 17/4

relief [1] 5/3

rely [2] 9/14 18/13

relying [2] 13/9 13/16

remember [1] 17/11

reminded [1] 4/7

remotely [1] 28/8

render [2] 17/23 27/7

RENELLA [2] 2/2 3/14

repair [7] 7/3 7/9 7/13

 8/12 8/23 9/8 9/13

replace [4] 7/12 8/12

 24/8 24/9

REPORTED [1] 2/22

reporter [4] 2/22 4/10

 15/2 28/11

reporting [1] 28/8

represent [1] 11/5

representing [1] 3/18

required [2] 5/7 10/17

requirement [7] 13/14

 16/4 16/5 16/11 22/5

 22/6 22/14

requirements [1] 5/5

requires [2] 22/11

 26/11

respect [4] 5/20 13/11

 15/23 16/5

respectfully [5] 11/20

 11/24 13/19 14/2 27/13

response [1] 23/14

rest [1] 13/22

restaurant [2] 9/21

 9/23

restoration [4] 6/14

 7/19 8/4 8/9

result [4] 5/11 20/23

 22/9 23/25

resulting [2] 8/3 27/10

review [3] 12/1 12/1

 25/14

right [14] 3/24 6/6 6/20

 10/23 14/13 15/10 20/6

 20/14 23/20 24/5 24/13

 25/10 25/13 25/20

ripe [1] 4/15

risk [7] 17/16 17/16

 19/13 21/15 21/15 21/17

 21/18

risks [1] 17/17

RMR [2] 2/22 28/10

Road [1] 2/9

roll [1] 23/16

round [1] 25/8

Royal [1] 26/3

rule [2] 5/2 25/24

ruled [2] 12/6 14/9

run [1] 19/12

S

said [3] 4/6 10/23 24/25

same [14] 9/16 12/12

 12/21 12/21 15/22 16/4

 16/8 20/24 21/4 21/5

 23/17 24/21 24/22 24/23

San [2] 1/24 3/20

sandbag [1] 14/24

say [8] 10/19 11/4 11/4

 12/9 18/1 22/19 24/17

 26/4

saying [7] 12/10 12/19

 15/7 19/4 24/21 24/22

 24/23

says [5] 6/3 11/5 12/14

 21/10 22/20

Thursday, April 8, 2021. 4/8/2021

Page 32

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 32 of 34 PF SUNSET VIEW vs. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INS. CO.
S

Scola [2] 5/15 5/16

scope [1] 25/9

screen [1] 6/2

SE [1] 2/3

second [1] 11/4

sections [1] 13/21

see [4] 6/2 6/7 7/15 7/16

seek [1] 4/24

seeks [1] 4/24

seen [1] 23/12

sense [1] 9/7

Sentinel [1] 20/11

seriously [1] 21/22

session [1] 25/21

share [1] 6/10

should [1] 6/3

show [1] 6/1

shut [3] 19/5 19/10

 27/10

shut-down [1] 27/10

shuts [1] 22/8

shutting [1] 22/20

side [1] 21/18

similar [4] 10/6 19/4

 26/2 27/2

similarly [1] 26/24

simple [1] 14/17

since [2] 4/17 17/4

situation [1] 12/12

slide [6] 6/2 6/2 6/3 6/7

 6/13 6/15

slides [1] 6/25

slowly [1] 4/9

so [46] 

Society [2] 20/25 21/2

some [5] 5/23 6/1 21/9

 23/12 23/24

somebody [1] 22/3

something [8] 10/18

 13/6 19/6 19/18 21/19

 22/7 22/10 23/3

sorry [2] 16/17 23/16

sort [2] 10/5 21/7

sorts [1] 19/11

South [3] 2/6 2/23

 28/12

SOUTHERN [1] 1/1

speak [5] 4/9 4/11

 14/22 23/7 26/18

Specialists [1] 20/11

SPECIALTY [7] 1/7

 3/6 3/15 3/18 3/22 5/2

 18/1

Specialty's [1] 4/21

specific [5] 6/24 7/16

 8/1 11/5 16/6

specifically [9] 5/6 7/14

 14/8 14/11 15/17 15/25

 19/23 20/2 21/16

spell [1] 15/1

square [1] 25/8

stage [2] 13/3 20/15

standby [1] 25/15

standing [1] 22/22

stands [1] 10/16

start [1] 4/18

starts [1] 8/9

state [13] 3/7 4/23 5/3

 5/4 5/10 10/5 11/22 14/9

 14/17 19/17 19/22 20/20

 26/4

stated [2] 5/16 9/25

statement [3] 10/20

 11/2 25/2

states [6] 1/1 1/14 2/23

 10/16 15/25 28/11

still [2] 23/19 25/3

strains [1] 27/13

stream [2] 7/12 9/9

strictly [2] 13/10 26/12

structural [1] 26/18

structure [1] 10/18

strung [1] 23/25

stuff [2] 24/8 24/9

subject [1] 28/7

submit [4] 11/20 11/24

 13/19 14/2

substance [1] 11/1

such [1] 26/20

sufficient [5] 5/18 9/19

 12/5 12/20 14/1

suggest [4] 10/12 11/15

 24/2 25/4

suggested [1] 8/5

Suite [5] 1/20 1/23 2/4

 2/7 2/10

SULLIVAN [16] 2/8

 3/16 3/18 3/24 4/17 6/10

 10/3 12/23 15/18 17/8

 18/8 18/22 19/14 23/11

 25/10 27/17

SUNSET [2] 1/4 3/5

superfluous [1] 24/20

Supp [1] 20/12

supplemental [1] 11/18

supplementary [1] 

 13/23

support [4] 10/14 11/3

 11/12 16/20

supported [2] 26/6

 26/14

supporting [1] 11/11

supreme [2] 12/23 13/3

sure [5] 14/12 19/21

 20/21 21/25 23/4

suspension [9] 7/19

 7/21 7/23 8/2 8/3 11/17

 11/23 12/16 16/22

sustain [3] 5/6 7/18

 16/1

sustained [1] 7/10

sympathetic [1] 27/9

T

take [9] 3/25 4/2 5/23

 13/7 22/18 23/10 23/22

 24/8 25/13

taken [2] 5/16 8/22

takes [2] 7/9 8/11

taking [3] 17/10 17/12

 21/7

talk [2] 9/1 13/13

talking [4] 8/14 11/7

 12/10 16/20

tangible [4] 12/11

 21/12 26/11 26/17

technological [1] 28/7

terminology [1] 26/24

terms [8] 10/8 14/6

 14/15 21/9 22/11 26/8

 26/10 27/12

text [1] 27/14

than [8] 10/25 16/3

 19/18 19/23 20/20 20/22

 22/15 25/16

thank [14] 3/24 4/6

 4/19 17/8 17/14 24/15

 25/10 25/17 25/18 25/20

 27/15 27/18 27/20 27/21

that [191] 

that's [7] 8/8 11/2 12/21

 13/5 15/5 15/17 20/10

their [15] 3/7 4/24 4/25

 7/12 8/9 9/9 10/14 10/16

 11/1 11/3 11/13 13/19

 16/6 16/16 17/24

them [6] 5/22 10/24

 17/23 19/5 21/17 24/2

then [10] 8/9 8/14 12/13

 12/15 13/13 13/22 18/3

 21/10 24/1 24/19

there [82] 

therefore [2] 18/10

 28/7

these [11] 4/24 7/7 8/1

 9/19 10/8 12/9 12/10

 17/18 17/19 17/24 19/2

they [27] 5/6 6/18 7/25

 8/9 10/13 11/2 11/4 11/5

 11/7 12/9 12/9 12/10

 13/18 13/23 14/5 16/17

 16/17 18/1 18/2 18/3

 18/4 18/13 23/25 23/25

 24/2 24/21 24/21

thing [3] 24/21 24/22

 24/23

think [23] 10/4 10/9

 14/4 14/23 17/3 17/5

 18/18 18/23 20/7 20/8

 20/17 20/23 21/2 21/9

 21/21 22/4 23/18 25/2

 25/12 26/5 26/6 26/14

 27/13

this [40] 

THOMAS [2] 1/22

 3/10

thorough [1] 20/23

those [10] 5/25 7/15

 13/24 14/4 20/1 20/3

 20/22 21/21 26/10 27/5

though [2] 15/15 19/10

threshold [6] 5/5 13/11

 13/14 22/13 22/15 27/3

through [3] 5/21 5/22

 5/24

throughout [1] 5/10

time [19] 5/23 7/5 7/5

 7/6 7/8 7/9 7/13 8/6

 8/10 8/11 8/11 8/22 9/8

 9/10 9/12 18/17 24/9

 25/24 27/20

times [1] 15/12

TIMOTHY [2] 1/21

 3/9

today [1] 26/4

today's [1] 6/11

together [2] 18/5 24/1

too [1] 15/12

took [1] 7/13

tortures [1] 25/4

towards [1] 6/15

TRANSCRIPT [1] 1/12

transcription [1] 28/3

transition [1] 12/13

traveling [1] 22/14

tries [2] 11/14 11/14

trigger [7] 5/7 5/18 9/5

 12/5 12/20 16/23 17/25

triggered [3] 18/11

 18/11 18/24

truly [1] 27/9

try [1] 10/12

trying [3] 14/24 20/2

 25/1

turn [1] 17/9

two [5] 3/19 10/4 10/21

 18/21 21/14

types [5] 9/19 17/18

 17/19 18/21 19/2

U

U.S [2] 2/23 28/12

unanimous [1] 5/17

under [14] 4/25 5/18

 5/25 7/1 7/25 8/17 10/2

 15/21 15/22 19/8 20/24

 21/5 22/5 22/14

undergoing [1] 23/6

understand [2] 13/10

 22/11

understanding [2] 

 12/25 13/1

Unfortunately [1] 5/9

Unintelligible [1] 3/20

UNITED [4] 1/1 1/14

 2/23 28/11

universe [1] 20/2

unless [2] 16/9 17/17

unlike [1] 18/16

unsafe [1] 17/23

up [2] 10/13 14/22

urogynecology [1] 20/8

Urogynocology [1] 

 20/11

us [1] 4/18

use [6] 6/15 6/20 17/23

 17/25 19/7 21/21

used [4] 18/9 18/25

 19/4 21/20

using [1] 19/1

V

Valley [1] 21/2

vast [1] 14/2

versus [6] 3/6 15/4

 20/11 21/2 23/21 26/3

very [5] 9/20 9/25

 10/24 15/20 27/15

video [2] 1/12 4/8

VIDEO-CONFERENC

ED [1] 1/12

view [5] 1/4 3/5 5/17

 24/2 24/5

virus [6] 8/19 8/21 9/4

 9/11 11/11 17/20

viruses [1] 21/16

volunteered [1] 17/11

W

W-L [1] 15/6

walk [1] 5/23

want [4] 6/2 8/14 15/16

 18/4

warranted [1] 26/7

was [40] 

Washington [1] 2/6

wasn't [2] 20/14 25/1

way [9] 4/12 9/23 10/14

 11/13 14/3 19/15 19/16

 24/12 24/25

we [19] 3/7 4/12 5/21

 8/13 9/1 9/14 11/18

 12/22 13/7 13/16 14/5

 15/25 17/15 21/25 23/8

 23/8 23/19 25/6 25/22

well [6] 4/6 18/1 21/4

 21/14 21/25 22/18

went [1] 14/16

were [12] 6/17 6/18

 9/20 10/23 11/7 12/14

 16/16 16/17 18/9 21/11

 22/1 22/2

weren't [2] 16/17 18/25

West [1] 1/23

Westlaw [2] 15/6 15/6

what [17] 7/4 10/23

 11/4 11/4 13/24 14/6

 16/13 16/13 16/20 18/1

 18/20 22/16 23/14 23/25

 25/4 25/6 26/4

when [9] 4/10 8/7 8/25

 9/2 9/5 12/9 23/22 24/4

 24/8

where [3] 13/25 16/21

 18/9

whether [1] 22/14

which [27] 3/22 4/14

 5/4 6/3 6/3 8/10 9/17

 10/13 10/14 11/9 11/19

 12/11 13/18 16/4 16/19

 16/19 18/12 18/25 19/12

 20/15 20/23 21/11 22/16

 24/11 24/11 25/3 26/23

Who [1] 4/2

whole [2] 22/6 26/15

why [7] 4/18 5/25 8/10

Thursday, April 8, 2021. 4/8/2021

Page 33

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 33 of 34 PF SUNSET VIEW vs. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INS. CO.
W

why... [4] 15/17 18/25

 19/13 20/23

widespread [1] 5/9

will [14] 6/20 7/15 7/16

 8/4 9/1 13/7 13/7 14/12

 15/25 17/12 17/13 18/8

 25/24 27/7

within [1] 25/9

without [1] 14/17

Worcester [1] 2/9

word [1] 23/21

worded [2] 23/13 26/24

words [3] 10/6 14/6

 24/5

works [1] 14/7

would [26] 5/4 5/23 7/3

 7/11 7/12 10/11 10/20

 11/20 11/24 13/19 14/2

 16/7 16/25 19/8 19/20

 20/3 22/2 22/3 22/6

 22/22 23/1 23/2 24/8

 24/16 24/19 24/21

wouldn't [2] 10/24 23/5

wrong [4] 10/12 11/25

 14/5 14/5

Y

Yeah [2] 15/3 20/16

yes [5] 6/5 6/8 16/16

 23/4 24/15

you [82] 

your [33] 

Z

Zelle [4] 2/3 2/6 2/9

 3/18

Zoom [1] 23/16

Thursday, April 8, 2021. 4/8/2021

Page 34

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2021 Page 34 of 34 PF SUNSET VIEW vs. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INS. CO.