UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

GIO PIZZERIA & BAR HOSPITALITY, 

LLC and GIO PIZZERIA BOCA, LLC, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, 

LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY 

NUMBERS ARP-74910-20 and ARP-75209-

20, 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. ____________ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC and GIO Pizzeria Boca, LLC (together, 

“GIO”), individually and on behalf of the other members of the below-defined nationwide 

Plaintiffs’ classes (collectively, the “Insured Class”), bring this class action against Defendants 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Numbers ARP-74910-20 and 

ARP-75209-20 (“Underwriters”), and in support thereof state the following: 

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Plaintiffs GIO own and operate Nick’s New Haven Style Pizzeria & Bar (“Nick’s 

Pizzerias”), full-service bar and restaurants, specializing in coal-fired pizza, with locations in Coral 

Springs, Florida and Boca Raton, Florida. Nick’s Pizzerias’ futures are now threatened by 

COVID-19 (a.k.a. the “coronavirus” or “SARS-CoV-2”). 

2. To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations 

for reasons outside of its control, or in order to prevent further property damage, Plaintiffs 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 1 of 27
2 

purchased insurance coverage from Underwriters, including special property coverage, as set forth 

in Underwriters’ Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form (“Special Property 

Coverage Form”). 

3. Underwriters’ Special Property Coverage Form provides “Business Income” 

coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the necessary suspension of operations following 

physical loss or damage to property. 

4. Underwriters’ Special Property Coverage Form also provides “Civil Authority” 

coverage, which promises to pay for loss caused by the action of a civil authority that prohibits 

access to the insured premises. 

5. Underwriters’ Special Property Coverage Form also provides “Extra Expense” 

coverage, which promises to pay the expense incurred to minimize the suspension of business and 

to continue operations. 

6. Underwriters’ Special Property Coverage Form, under a section entitled “Duties in 

the Event of Loss” mandates that Underwriter’s insured “must see that the following are done in 

the event of loss”. . . [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further 

damage and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect the Covered Property, for 

consideration in the settlement of the claim.” 

7. Unlike many policies that provide Business Income (also referred to as “business 

interruption”) coverage, Underwriters’ Special Property Coverage Form does not include, and is 

not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases. 

8. Plaintiffs GIO were forced to suspend or reduce business at their Nick’s Pizzerias 

due to COVID-19 and the resultant orders issued by civil authorities in Florida mandating the 

suspension of business for on-site services, as well as in order to take necessary steps to prevent 

further damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 2 of 27
3 

9. Upon information and belief, Underwriters have, on a widescale and uniform basis, 

refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and 

Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil authorities 

that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property 

damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. Indeed, Underwriters 

have denied claims submitted by Plaintiffs GIO under their policies. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because 

Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different countries, and because: (a) the Class consists of 

at least 100 members; (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and 

costs; and (c) no relevant exceptions apply to this claim. 

11. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the policies 

specifically state that service of suit may be made upon an agent domiciled in New York at a 

specific New York address. The policies further state that, in the event the Underwriters fail to 

pay any amount claimed to be due, the Underwriters “will submit to the jurisdiction of a Court of 

competent jurisdiction within the United States.” 

III. THE PARTIES 

Plaintiffs 

12. Plaintiff GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC is a Florida LLC, with its principal 

place of business in Coral Springs, Florida. Plaintiff GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC owns 

and operates Nick’s New Haven Style Pizzeria & Bar, located in Coral Springs, Florida. 

13. Plaintiff GIO Pizzeria Boca, LLC is a Florida LLC, with its principal place of 

business in Boca Raton, Florida. Plaintiff GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC owns and operates 

Nick’s New Haven Style Pizzeria & Bar, located in Boca Raton, Florida. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 3 of 27
4 

Defendants 

14. Underwriters are composed of separate syndicates, in turn comprised of entities 

known as “Names,” which underwrite insurance in a market known as Lloyd’s of London. Each 

“Name” and syndicate is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and is located in and 

has its principal place of business in England. 

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. The Special Property Coverage Form 

15. In return for the payment of a premium, Underwriters issued Policy No. ARP74910-20 to GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC, for a policy period of June 1, 2019 to June 1, 

2020, including a Business Income (And Extra Expense) Coverage Form. Policy No. ARP-74910-

20 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC has performed all of its 

obligations under Policy No. ARP-74910-20, including the payment of premiums. The Covered 

Property, with respect to the Special Property Coverage Form, is the Nick’s Pizzeria at 2444 North 

University Drive, Coral Springs, Florida. 

16. In return for the GIO’s premium payments, Underwriters issued Policy No. ARP75209-20 to GIO Pizzeria Boca, LLC for a policy period of February 21, 2020 to February 21, 

2021, including a Business Income (And Extra Expense) Coverage Form. Policy No. ARP-75209-

20 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. GIO Pizzeria Boca, LLC has performed all of its obligations 

under Policy No. ARP-75209-20, including the payment of premiums. The Covered Property, 

with respect to the Special Property Coverage Form, is the Nick’s Pizzeria at 2240 NW 19 Street, 

Suite 904, Boca Raton, Florida. 

17. Each Plaintiff’s Special Property Coverage Form, included within the policies 

attached as Exhibits A-B, includes identical Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and 

Sue and Labor coverages. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 4 of 27
5 

18. In many parts of the world, property insurance is sold on a specific peril basis. Such 

policies cover a risk of loss if that risk of loss is specifically listed (e.g., hurricane, earthquake, 

H1N1, etc.). Most property policies sold in the United States, however, including those sold by 

Underwriters insurance, are all-risk property damage policies. These types of policies cover all 

risks of loss except for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded. Under the heading 

“Covered Causes of Loss,” Underwriters agreed to pay for direct physical loss “unless the loss is 

excluded or limited” in the policies. 

19. Underwriters did not exclude or limit coverage for losses from viruses in Plaintiffs’ 

policies or those of the other Class members. 

20. Losses due to COVID-19 are a Covered Cause of Loss under the Underwriters’ 

policies with the Special Property Coverage Form. 

21. In the Special Property Coverage Form, Underwriters agreed to pay for its insureds’ 

actual loss of Business Income sustained due to the necessary suspension of its operations during 

the “period of restoration” caused by direct physical loss or damage. A “slowdown or cessation” 

of business activities at the Covered Property is a “suspension” under the policy, for which 

Underwriters agreed to pay for loss of Business Income during the “period of restoration” that 

begins 72 hours after the time of direct physical loss or damage. 

22. “Business Income” means net income (or loss) before tax that Plaintiffs would have 

earned and continuing normal operating expenses incurred, including payroll. 

23. The presence of virus or disease can constitute physical damage to property, as the 

insurance industry has recognized since at least 2006. When preparing so-called “virus” 

exclusions to be placed in some policies, but not others, the insurance industry drafting arm, ISO, 

circulated a statement to state insurance regulators that included the following: 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 5 of 27
6 

Disease-causing agents may render a product impure (change its 

quality or substance), or enable the spread of disease by their

presence on interior building surfaces or the surfaces of personal 

property. When disease-causing viral or bacterial contamination 

occurs, potential claims involve the cost of replacement of property 

(for example, the milk), cost of decontamination (for example, 

interior building surfaces), and business interruption (time element) 

losses. Although building and personal property could arguably

become contaminated (often temporarily) by such viruses and 

bacteria, the nature of the property itself would have a bearing on 

whether there is actual property damage. An allegation of property 

damage may be a point of disagreement in a particular case. 

24. In the Special Property Coverage Form, Underwriters also agreed to pay necessary 

Extra Expense that its insureds incur during the “period of restoration” that the insureds would not 

have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property. 

25. “Extra Expense” includes expenses to avoid or minimize the suspension of 

business, continue operations, and to repair or replace property. 

26. Underwriters also agreed to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income” that 

Plaintiffs sustains “and any Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access 

to” the Covered Property when a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property near the 

Covered Property, the civil authority prohibits access to property immediately surrounding the 

damaged property, the Covered Property is within the prohibited area, and the civil authority action 

is taken “in response to dangerous physical conditions.” 

27. Underwriters’ Special Property Coverage Form, under a section entitled “Duties in 

the Event of Loss” mandates that Underwriters’ insureds “must see that the following are done in 

the event of loss. . . [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage 

and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect the Covered Property, for consideration 

in the settlement of the claim.” This is commonly referred to as “Sue and Labor” coverage. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 6 of 27
7 

28. Losses caused by COVID-19 and the related orders issued by local, state, and 

federal authorities triggered the Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and 

Labor provisions of the Underwriters policy. 

B. The Covered Cause of Loss 

29. The presence of COVID-19 has caused civil authorities throughout the country to 

issue orders requiring the suspension of business at a wide range of establishments, including civil 

authorities with jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ businesses (the “Closure Orders”). 

1. The Florida Closure Orders 

30. On March 17, 2020, Boca Raton issued a civil authority order requiring the closing 

of bars and from selling alcohol and banning dine-in eating in Boca Raton restaurants. This order 

has been in effect since March 17, 2020. 

31. On March 17, 2020, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued a civil authority order 

restricting bars from selling alcohol and ordering every restaurant to limit its occupancy to 50% of 

current building capacity. This order has been in effect since March 17, 2020. 

32. On March 18, 2020, Coral Springs issued a civil authority order requiring the 

closing of bars and effectively limiting the capacity of restaurants by requiring social distancing 

measures. This order has been in effect since March 18, 2020. 

33. On March 20, 2020, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued a civil authority order 

requiring the suspension of alcohol sales for on-premises consumption and the suspension of all 

dine-in eating at restaurants. This order has been in effect since March 20, 2020. 

34. On March 22, 2020, Broward County issued a civil authority order requiring the 

closure of bars in Broward County and banning dine-in eating in Broward County restaurants. 

This order has been in effect since March 22, 2020. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 7 of 27
8 

35. The Florida, Broward County, Coral Springs, and Boca Raton Closure Orders were 

issued in response to the rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout Florida. 

2. The Impact of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders 

36. The presence of COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of or damage to the covered 

property under the Plaintiffs’ policies, and the policies of the other Class members, by denying use 

of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during 

a period of restoration. 

37. The Closure Orders prohibited access to Plaintiffs and the other Class members’ 

Covered Property, and the area immediately surrounding Covered Property, in response to 

dangerous physical conditions resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss. 

38. As a result of the presence of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders, Plaintiffs and the 

other Class members lost Business Income and incurred Extra Expense. 

39. Plaintiffs submitted claims for loss to Underwriters under their policies due to the 

presence of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders, and Underwriters denied those claims. 

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

40. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 

23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated. 

41. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes defined as: 

 All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage

under a property insurance policy issued by Underwriters; (b) 

suffered a suspension of business related to COVID-19, at the 

premises covered by their Underwriters property insurance policy; 

(c) made a claim under their property insurance policy issued by 

Underwriters; and (d) were denied Business Income coverage by 

Underwriters for the suspension of business resulting from the 

presence or threat of COVID-19 (the “Business Income Breach 

Class”). 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 8 of 27
9 

 All persons and entities that: (a) had Civil Authority coverage under 

a property insurance policy issued by Underwriters; (b) suffered 

loss of Business Income and/or Extra Expense caused by action of a 

civil authority; (c) made a claim under their property insurance 

policy issued by Underwriters; and (d) were denied Civil Authority 

coverage by Underwriters for the loss of Business Income and/or

Extra Expense caused by a Closure Order (the “Civil Authority 

Breach Class”). 

 All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under 

a property insurance policy issued by Underwriters; (b) sought to 

minimize the suspension of business in connection with COVID-19

at the premises covered by their Underwriters property insurance 

policy; (c) made a claim under their property insurance policy issued 

by Underwriters; and (d) were denied Extra Expense coverage by 

Underwriters despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of 

business caused by COVID-19 (the “Extra Expense Breach Class”). 

 All persons and entities that: (a) had a Sue and Labor provision 

under a property insurance policy issued by Underwriters; (b) 

sought to prevent property damage caused by COVID-19 by 

suspending or reducing business operations, at the premises covered 

by their Underwriters property insurance policy; (c) made a claim 

under their property insurance policy issued by Underwriters; and 

(d) were denied Sue and Labor coverage by Underwriters in 

connection with the suspension of business caused by COVID-19 

(the “Sue and Labor Breach Class”). 

 All persons and entities with Business Income coverage under a 

property insurance policy issued by Underwriters that suffered a 

suspension of business due to COVID-19 at the premises covered 

by the business income coverage (the “Business Income Declaratory 

Judgment Class”). 

 All persons and entities with Civil Authority coverage under a 

property insurance policy issued by Underwriters that suffered loss 

of Business Income and/or Extra Expense caused by a Closure Order 

(the “Civil Authority Declaratory Judgment Class”). 

 All persons and entities with Extra Expense coverage under a 

property insurance policy issued by Underwriters that sought to

minimize the suspension of business in connection with COVID-19

at the premises covered by their Underwriters property insurance 

policy (the “Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class”). 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 9 of 27
10 

 All persons and entities with a Sue and Labor provision under a

property insurance policy issued by Underwriters that sought to

prevent property damage caused by COVID-19 by suspending or 

reducing business operations, at the premises covered by their 

Underwriters property insurance policy (the “Sue and Labor 

Declaratory Judgment Class”). 

42. Excluded from each defined Class are Defendants and any of their members, 

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

governmental entities; and the Court staff assigned to this case and their immediate family 

members. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend each of the Class definitions, as 

appropriate, during the course of this litigation. 

43. 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. 

44. Numerosity—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of each 

defined Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. While 

Plaintiffs are informed and believes that there are thousands of members of each Class, the precise 

number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs but may be ascertained from Defendants’ books 

and records. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Courtapproved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. Mail, electronic mail, internet 

postings, and/or published notice. 

45. Commonality and Predominance—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) 

and 23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual Class members, including, without limitation:

a. Underwriters issued all-risk policies to the members of the Class in exchange for 

payment of premiums by the Class members; 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 10 of 27
11 

b. whether the Class suffered a covered loss based on the common policies issued to 

members of the Class; 

c. whether Underwriters wrongfully denied all claims based on COVID-19; 

d. whether Underwriters’ Business Income coverage applies to a suspension of 

business caused by COVID-19; 

e. whether Underwriters’ Civil Authority coverage applies to a loss of Business 

Income caused by the orders of state governors requiring the suspension of 

business as a result of COVID-19; 

f. whether Underwriters’ Extra Expense coverage applies to efforts to minimize a 

loss caused by COVID-19; 

g. whether Underwriters’ Sue and Labor provision applies to require Underwriters to 

pay for efforts to reduce damage caused by COVID-19; 

h. whether Underwriters has breached its contracts of insurance through a blanket 

denial of all claims based on business interruption, income loss or closures related 

to COVID-19 and the related closures; and 

i. whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney 

fees, interest and costs. 

46. Typicality—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are 

typical of the other Class members’ claims because Plaintiffs and the other Class members are all 

similarly affected by Defendants’ refusal to pay under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra 

Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages. Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon the same legal theories 

as those of the other Class members. Plaintiffs and the other Class members sustained damages 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 11 of 27
12 

47. Adequacy of Representation—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). 

Plaintiffs are adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the 

interests of the other Class members who they seek to represent, Plaintiffs have retained counsel 

competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, including successfully litigating 

class action cases similar to this one, where insurers breached contracts with insureds by failing to 

pay the amounts owed under their policies, and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously. 

The interests of the above-defined Classes will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and 

their counsel. 

48. Inconsistent or Varying Adjudications and the Risk of Impediments to Other 

Class Members’ Interests—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). Plaintiffs seek classwide adjudication as to the interpretation, and resultant scope, of Defendants’ Business Income, 

Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages. The prosecution of separate actions 

by individual members of the Classes would create an immediate risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants. 

Moreover, the adjudications sought by Plaintiffs could, as a practical matter, substantially impair 

or impede the ability of other Class members, who are not parties to this action, to protect their 

interests. 

49. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). 

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

members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as described 

below, with respect to the Class members.

50. Superiority—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is 

superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, 

and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 12 of 27
13 

Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and 

increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action 

device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, 

economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Business Income Breach Class) 

51. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

52. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Business Income Breach Class. 

53. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters policies, as well as those of the other Business Income 

Breach Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters were paid premiums in exchange 

for their promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Breach Class members’ losses 

for claims covered by the policy. 

54. In the Special Property Coverage Form, Underwriters agreed to pay for its insureds’ 

actual loss of Business Income sustained due to the necessary suspension of its operations during 

the “period of restoration.” 

55. A “slowdown or cessation” of business activities at the Covered Property is a 

“suspension” under the policy, for which Underwriters agreed to pay for loss of Business Income 

during the “period of restoration” that begins within 72 hours after the time of direct physical loss 

or damage. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 13 of 27
14 

56. “Business Income” means net income (or loss) before tax that Plaintiffs and the 

other Business Income Breach Class members would have earned “if no physical loss or damage 

had occurred” and continuing normal operating expenses incurred. 

57. COVID-19 caused direct physical loss and damage to Plaintiffs and the other 

Business Income Breach Class members’ Covered Properties, requiring suspension of operations 

at the Covered Properties. Losses caused by COVID-19 thus triggered the Business Income 

provision of Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Breach Class members’ Underwriters’ 

policies. 

58. Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Breach Class members have complied 

with all applicable provisions of their policies and/or those provisions have been waived by 

Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies’ clear and unambiguous 

terms. 

59. By denying coverage for any Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiffs and the 

other Business Income Breach Class members in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, 

Underwriters has breached its coverage obligations under the policies. 

60. As a result of Underwriters’ breaches of the policies, Plaintiffs and the other 

Business Income Breach Class members have sustained substantial damages for which 

Underwriters is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Civil Authority Breach Class) 

61. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 14 of 27
15 

62. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Civil Authority Breach Class. 

63. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters insurance policies, as well as those of the other Civil 

Authority Breach Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid premiums in 

exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Breach Class members’ 

losses for claims covered by the policy. 

64. Underwriters agreed to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income” that insureds 

sustain “and any Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to” the 

Covered Property when a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property near the Covered 

Property, the civil authority prohibits access to property immediately surrounding the damaged 

property, the Covered Property is within the prohibited area, and the civil authority action is taken 

“in response to dangerous physical conditions.” 

65. The Closure Orders triggered the Civil Authority provision under Plaintiffs and the 

other members of the Civil Authority Breach Class’s Underwriters insurance policies. 

66. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Civil Authority Breach Class have complied 

with all applicable provisions of the policies, and/or those provisions have been waived by 

Underwriters, or is Underwriters estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the Policies’ clear and unambiguous 

terms. 

67. By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiffs and other 

members of the Civil Authority Breach Class in connection with the Closure Orders and the 

COVID-19 pandemic, Underwriters has breached its coverage obligations under the policies. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 15 of 27
16 

68. As a result of Underwriters’ breaches of the policies, Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Civil Authority Breach Class have sustained substantial damages for which 

Underwriters is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT III 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Extra Expense Breach Class) 

69. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

70. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Extra Expense Breach Class. 

71. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters insurance policies, as well as those of the other Extra 

Expense Breach Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid premiums in 

exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Breach Class members’ 

losses for claims covered by the policy. 

72. In the Special Property Coverage Form, Underwriters also agreed to pay necessary 

Extra Expense that its insureds incur during the “period of restoration” that the insureds would not 

have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property. 

73. “Extra Expense” includes expenses to avoid or minimize the suspension of 

business, continue operations, and to repair or replace property. 

74. Due to COVID-19 and the Closure Orders, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Extra Expense Breach Class incurred Extra Expense at Covered Property 

75. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Extra Expense Breach Class have complied 

with all applicable provisions of the policies and/or those provisions have been waived by 

Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 16 of 27
17 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies’ clear and unambiguous 

terms. 

76. By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Extra Expense Breach Class in connection with the Closure Orders and the 

COVID-19 pandemic, Underwriters has breached its coverage obligations under the policies. 

77. As a result of Underwriters’ breaches of the policies, Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Extra Expense Breach Class have sustained substantial damages for which 

Underwriters is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT IV 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – SUE AND LABOR COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Sue and Labor Breach Class) 

78. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

79. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Sue and Labor Breach Class. 

80. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters policies, as well as those of the other Sue and Labor Breach 

Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid premiums in exchange for its 

promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Breach Class members’ losses for claims 

covered by the policy. 

81. In the Special Property Coverage Form, Underwriters agreed to give due 

consideration in settlement of a claim to expenses incurred in taking all reasonable steps to protect 

Covered Property from further damage. 

82. In complying with the Closure Orders and otherwise suspending or limiting 

operations, Plaintiffs and other members of the Sue and Labor Breach Class incurred expenses in 

connection with reasonable steps to protect Covered Property. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 17 of 27
18 

83. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Sue and Labor Breach Class have complied 

with all applicable provisions of the policy and/or those provisions have been waived by 

Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies’ clear and unambiguous 

terms. 

84. By denying coverage for any Sue and Labor expenses incurred by Plaintiffs and the 

other members of the Sue and Labor Breach Class in connection with the Closure Orders and the 

COVID-19 pandemic, Underwriters has breached its coverage obligations under the policies. 

85. As a result of Underwriters’ breaches of the policies, Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Sue and Labor Breach Class have sustained substantial damages for which 

Underwriters is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT V 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class) 

86. Plaintiffs Underwriters (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and 

realleges Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

87. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class. 

88. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters policies, as well as those of the other Business Income 

Declaratory Judgment Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid premiums 

in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Declaratory Judgment 

Class members’ losses for claims covered by the policy. 

89. Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class members 

have complied with all applicable provisions of the policies and/or those provisions have been 

waived by Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 18 of 27
19 

has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies’ clear and unambiguous 

terms and has wrongfully and illegally refused to provide coverage to which Plaintiffs and the 

other Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class members are entitled. 

90. Underwriters has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, such that the Court can render declaratory 

judgment irrespective of whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

91. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs and the other Business 

Income Declaratory Judgment Class members’ rights and Underwriters’ obligations under the 

policies to reimburse Plaintiffs for the full amount of Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiffs 

and the other Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class members in connection with 

suspension of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

92. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Declaratory 

Judgment Class members seek a declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class members’ 

Business Income losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the 

necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic 

are insured losses under their policies; and 

ii. Underwriters is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the other Business Income 

Declaratory Judgment Class members for the full amount of the Business Income 

losses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the Closure Orders during the 

period of restoration and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming 

from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 19 of 27
20 

COUNT VI 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Civil Authority Declaratory Judgment Class) 

93. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

94. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Civil Authority Declaratory Judgment Class. 

95. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters insurance policy, as well as those of the other Civil 

Authority Declaratory Judgment Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid 

premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Declaratory 

Judgment Class members’ losses for claims covered by the policy. 

96. Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Declaratory Judgment Class members have 

complied with all applicable provisions of the policies and/or those provisions have been waived 

by Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies’ clear and unambiguous terms 

and has wrongfully and illegally refused to provide coverage to which Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members are entitled. 

97. Underwriters has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, such that the Court can render declaratory 

judgment irrespective of whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

98. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs and the other Civil 

Authority Declaratory Judgment Class members’ rights and Underwriters’ obligations under the 

policies to reimburse Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Declaratory Judgment Class members 

for the full amount of covered Civil Authority losses incurred by Plaintiffs and the other Civil 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 20 of 27
21 

Authority Declaratory Judgment Class members in connection with Closure Orders and the 

necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

99. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Declaratory 

Judgment Class members seek a declaratory judgment from this 

Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Declaratory Judgment Class members’ Civil 

Authority losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary 

interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are 

insured losses under their policies; and 

ii. Underwriters is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the other Civil Authority Declaratory 

Judgment Class members the full amount of the Civil Authority losses incurred and 

to be incurred in connection with the covered losses related to the Closure Orders 

and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 

pandemic 

COUNT VII 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class) 

100. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

101. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class. 

102. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters insurance policy, as well as those of the other Extra 

Expense Declaratory Judgment Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid 

premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory 

Judgment Class members’ losses for claims covered by the policy. 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 21 of 27
22 

103. Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class members have 

complied with all applicable provisions of the policies and/or those provisions have been waived 

by Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies clear and unambiguous terms 

and has wrongfully and illegally refused to provide coverage to which Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members are entitled. 

104. Underwriters has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, such that the Court can render declaratory 

judgment irrespective of whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

105. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs and the other Extra 

Expense Declaratory Judgment Class members’ rights and Underwriters’ obligations under the 

policies to reimburse Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class members 

for the full amount of Extra Expense losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with Closure 

Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

106. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory 

Judgment Class members seek a declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class members’ Extra 

Expense losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary 

interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are 

insured losses under their policies; and 

ii. Underwriters is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory 

Judgment Class members for the full amount of the Extra Expense losses incurred 

and to be incurred in connection with the covered losses related to the Closure 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 22 of 27
23 

Orders during the period of restoration and the necessary interruption of their 

businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

COUNT VIII 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – SUE AND LABOR COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the Sue and Labor Declaratory Judgment Class) 

107. Plaintiffs GIO (“Plaintiffs” for the purpose of this claim) repeat and reallege 

Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 

108. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Sue and Labor Declaratory Judgment Class. 

109. Plaintiffs’ Underwriters insurance policy, as well as those of the other Sue and 

Labor Declaratory Judgment Class members, are contracts under which Underwriters was paid 

premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Declaratory 

Judgment Class members’ reasonably incurred expenses to protect Covered Property. 

110. Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Declaratory Judgment Class members have 

complied with all applicable provisions of the policies and/or those provisions have been waived 

by Underwriters, or Underwriters is estopped from asserting them, and yet Underwriters has 

abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policies’ clear and unambiguous terms 

and has wrongfully and illegally refused to provide coverage to which Plaintiffs is entitled. 

111. Underwriters has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, such that the Court can render declaratory 

judgment irrespective of whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

112. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs and the other Sue and 

Labor Declaratory Judgment Class members’ rights and Underwriters’ obligations under the 

policies to reimburse Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Declaratory Judgment Class members 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 23 of 27
24 

for the full amount Plaintiffs and the other members of the Sue and Labor Declaratory Judgment 

Class reasonably incurred to protect Covered Property from further damage by COVID-19. 

113. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Declaratory 

Judgment Class members seek a declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Declaratory Judgment Class members 

reasonably incurred expenses to protect Covered Property from further damage by 

COVID-19 are insured losses under their policies; and 

ii. Underwriters is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the other Sue and Labor Declaratory 

Judgment Class members for the full amount of the expenses they reasonably 

incurred to protect Covered Property from further damage by COVID-19. 

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, 

respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 

a. Entering an order certifying the proposed nationwide Classes, as requested herein, 

designating Plaintiffs as Class representative, and appointing Plaintiffs’ undersigned attorneys as 

Counsel for the Classes; 

b. Entering judgment on Counts I-IV in favor of Plaintiffs GIO and the members of 

the Business Income Breach Class, the Civil Authority Breach Class, the Extra Expense Breach 

Class, and the Sue and Labor Breach Class; and awarding damages for breach of contract in an 

amount to be determined at trial; 

c. Entering declaratory judgments on Counts V-VIII in favor of Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class, the Civil Authority Declaratory 

Judgment Class, the Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class, and the Sue and Labor 

Declaratory Judgment Class as follows; 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 24 of 27
25 

i. Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor losses 

incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption 

of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses 

under their policies; and 

ii. Underwriters is obligated to pay for the full amount of the Business Income, 

Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor losses incurred and to be 

incurred related to COVID-19, the Closure Orders and the necessary 

interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic; 

d. Ordering Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts 

awarded; 

e. Ordering Defendants to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

f. Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

VIII. JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable. 

Dated: April 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Greg G. Gutzler 

Greg G. Gutzler 

DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 

444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor 

New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: 646-933-1000 

 ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com 

Adam J. Levitt 

Amy E. Keller* 

Daniel R. Ferri* 

Mark Hamill* 

Laura E. Reasons* 

DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 

Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 25 of 27
26 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Telephone: 312-214-7900 

 alevitt@dicellolevitt.com 

 dferri@dicellolevitt.com 

 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com 

Mark A. DiCello* 

Kenneth P. Abbarno* 

 Mark Abramowitz* 

 DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 

 7556 Mentor Avenue 

 Mentor, Ohio 44060 

 Telephone: 440-953-8888 

madicello@dicellolevitt.com 

kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com 

 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com 

 

 Mark Lanier 

Alex Brown 

Skip McBride* 

 THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 

10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North 

 Suite 100 

 Houston, Texas 77064 

 Telephone: 713-659-5200 

 WML@lanierlawfirm.com 

alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com 

skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com 

Evan Janush 

 THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 

126 East 56th Street, Sixth Floor 

 New York, New York 10022 

 Telephone: 212-421-2800 

 WML@lanierlawfirm.com 

alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com 

Timothy W. Burns* 

Jeff J. Bowen* 

Jesse J. Bair* 

Freya K. Bowen* 

BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP 

One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 

Madison, Wisconsin 53703 

Telephone: 608-286-2302 

tburns@bbblawllp.com 

jbowen@bbblawllp.com 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 26 of 27
27 

jbair@bbblawllp.com 

fbowen@bbblawllp.com 

Douglas Daniels* 

DANIELS & TREDENNICK 

6363 Woodway, Suite 700 

Houston, Texas 77057 

Telephone: 713-917-0024 

douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

and the Proposed Classes 

* Applications for admission pro hac vice to be filed 

Case 0:20-cv-61741-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2020 Page 27 of 27