UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TL GOODSON LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHERN-OWNERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and 

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendants.

Civil Case No. 

COMES NOW Plaintiff TL GOODSON LLC, and brings this Complaint

seeking declaratory judgment against Defendants SOUTHERN-OWNERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY and AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and 

alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. At all relevant times, Plaintiff TL Goodson LLC (“TL Goodson”) is a 

Limited Liability Company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and 

located at 1 New Market Street, Cantonment, FL 32533.

2. Defendant Southern-Owners Insurance Company (“SouthernOwners”) is a Michigan Corporation authorized to do business in the State of 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 18
2

Florida, with headquarters located at 6101 Anacapri Boulevard, Lansing, MI 

48917.

3. Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”) is a 

Michigan Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, with 

headquarters located at 6101 Anacapri Boulevard, Lansing, MI 48917

4. At all relevant times, Southern-Owners and Auto-Owners

(collectively “Defendants”) are corporations doing business in the State of Florida. 

Defendants are authorized to write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing 

property coverage in Florida. Defendants conducted and transacted business in the 

state of Florida through the writing, selling, and issuing of insurance policies, and 

the basis of this suit arises out of such conduct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Federal diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Plaintiff is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in 

Florida. Defendants are both Michigan corporations with their principal place of 

business in Michigan. Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship exists. The 

amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000.

6. Venue in the Northern District of Florida is proper pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391 because Plaintiff is located in this District, a substantial part of the 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 18
3

events or omissions on which the claims asserted herein are based occurred in this 

District, and the subject contract was executed in the District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. In 2020, Florida experienced an outbreak of severe acute respiratory 

syndrome coronavirus 2 (“SARS-CoV-2” or “coronavirus”) and coronavirus 

disease 2019 (“COVID-19”). This has resulted in losses to business throughout the 

State of Florida and the United States. Many businesses ceased operations or 

significantly reduced operations due to the pandemic. Furthermore, orders from 

government entities, such as the Governor and County and Municipal 

Governments, required closure of many businesses in Florida. As a result, many 

businesses have filed insurance claims for coverage for loss of business income 

due to the closure of their businesses.

8. On March 1, 2020, the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, issued 

Executive Order 20-51, directing the State Health Officer and Surgeon General to 

declare public health emergency in the State of Florida.1

 The order acknowledged 

the presence of the first two confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 

within Florida, and that the CDC recommended particular guidelines to slow the 

spread of the virus.

 1 https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-51.pdf.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 18
4

9. On March 9, 2020, Governor DeSantis, issued Executive Order 20-52, 

expanding his prior declaration of a public health emergency in the State of 

Florida.2

 The order acknowledged the presence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 and 

COVID-19 within Florida, having spread to eight counties, and that the virus posed 

a threat to the health and welfare of residents of the entire state of Florida. 

10. On March 17, 2020, Governor DeSantis, issued Executive Order 20-

68, which added specific restrictions to restaurants in Florida.3

 The order restricted 

restaurants to 50% capacity, and required that restaurants maintain a minimum of 6 

feet between groups of customers and no more than 10 customers in any group. 

Additionally, the order required restaurants to screen any employee diagnosed with 

COVID-19 or showing symptoms of the disease, and to prohibit them from the 

premises.

11. On March 20, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-

71, which required all restaurants and bars to suspend food service on their 

premises.4

 The order allowed businesses to continue to operate their kitchens for 

the purpose of providing delivery and take-out services.

12. On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-91, 

also known as the “Safer At Home” order, which ordered the closure of all 

 2 https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-52.pdf.

3 https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-68.pdf.

4 https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-71.pdf.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 4 of 18
5

businesses that do not provide “essential services.”5 The order acknowledged the 

presence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 within Florida, and that it 

posed a threat to the health and welfare of residents of Florida. The order specified 

that all non-essential businesses would be closed for 30 days, subject to extension

of the order by the Governor.

13. On or about March 17, 2020, Plaintiff began to restrict on-premises 

consistent with the requirements under the Governor’s order.

14. On or about March 20, 2020 Plaintiff closed the premises to onpremise dining, and transitioned their kitchen to allowing carry-out only.

15. On-premise dining was prohibited until May 1, 2020, when Governor 

DeSantis lifted the restrictions preventing on-premise dining. Other provisions 

regarding maximum capacity and social distancing remained in effect.

16. Starting in May, Plaintiff began a limited reopening consistent with 

the requirements of the executive orders issued by Governor DeSantis

17. On or about June 23, 2020, Jane Doe 1 notified the insured that she 

had been exposed to an individual who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. On or 

about July 3, 2020, Jane Doe 1, an employee of Plaintiff, was diagnosed with 

SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19. Jane Doe 1 had last been physically present on 

the insured premises on or about June 21, 20202, thereby exposing the insured 

 5 https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-91-compressed.pdf.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 5 of 18
6

premises to particles of SARS-CoV-2. During this time, the employee had access 

to the full building, and was likely in most, if not all, rooms within the building, 

including the kitchen, dining area, and bathrooms.

18. On or about June 29, 2020, John Doe 1 notified the insured that she 

had been exposed to an individual who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. On or 

about July 3, 2020, John Doe 1, an employee of Plaintiff, was diagnosed with 

SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19. John Doe 1 had last been physically present on 

the insured premises on or about June 26, 20202, thereby exposing the insured 

premises to particles of SARS-CoV-2. During this time, the employee had access 

to the full building, and was likely in most, if not all, rooms within the building, 

including the kitchen, dining area, and bathrooms.

19. As a result of these positive cases, on or about July 4, 2020, the 

insured premises were closed to business due to the presence of coronavirus, and 

risk to the company’s customers and employees. A private company was brought 

in on or about to sanitize the premises and ensure no further spread of COVID-19 

among Plaintiff’s employees or customers.

20. Plaintiff remained closed for 9 days, and reopened for business on 

July 13, 2020, after management and staff had been tested and confirmed negative 

for coronavirus.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 6 of 18
7

21. On or about February 14, 2020, Defendants entered into a contract of 

insurance with Plaintiff, whereby Plaintiff agreed to make payments to Defendants 

in exchange for Defendants’ promise to provide coverage to Plaintiff for covered 

losses including, but not limited to, business income losses at its insured premises. 

22. In return for payment of premiums, Southern-Owners issued Policy 

Number 204622-78400865-20 (“the Policy”)6 for a policy term of February 14, 

2020 through February 14, 2021. The policy is a package policy, including 

Commercial Property Coverage Commercial General Liability Coverage, and 

Liquor Liability Coverage.

23. The insured premise is a restaurant located at 1 New Market Street, 

Cantonment, FL 32533. The insured premise is open every day for lunch and 

dinner, and provides a range of food and beverage options, including alcoholic 

beverages.

24. The Policy includes a declarations page stating what forms of 

coverage are provided under the Policy. The insured premise is covered for 

Business Income and Extra Expense and is limited to “Actual Loss Sustained” 

during the policy period.

25. Plaintiff has what is known as an “all risk policy.” The Policy 

specifies in the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form that Southern-

 6 Attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 7 of 18
8

Owners would provide coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered 

Property... caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” The Policy 

defines “Covered Cause of Loss” as “risks of direct physical loss unless the loss is 

[excluded or limited].”

26. The policy does not define the terms “direct”, “physical”, “loss”, or 

“damage”.

27. The policy includes an endorsement providing coverage for Business 

Income and Extra Expense. The endorsement modifies the Building and Personal 

Property Coverage Form to add an additional coverage. The endorsement states 

that Southern-Owners “will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain 

due to the necessary suspension of your ‘operations’ during the ‘period of 

restoration’.” The endorsement further states that Southern-Owners “will pay 

necessary Extra Expense you incur during the ‘period of restoration’.”

28. The “period of restoration” is defined in the policy as the period of 

time beginning on the date of “direct physical loss or damage” and ending on the 

date the premises were “repaired, rebuilt, or replaced.”

29. There is an additional provision within the Business Income and Extra 

Expense endorsement that provides coverage for losses due to the action of civil 

authority. The endorsement states that Southern-Owners will pay for the actual 

loss caused by “action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 8 of 18
9

premises... due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the 

described premises... caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” 

The term “civil authority” is not defined in the policy.

30. Plaintiff faithfully paid policy premiums to Southern-Owners, 

specifically to provide Building and Personal Property Coverage and additional 

coverages under the policy, including coverage for Business Income and Extra 

Expense.

31. Plaintiff sustained, and continues to sustain, a loss(es) due to SARSCoV-2 and COVID-19 at, in, and / or around Plaintiff’s insured premises described 

in the Policy.

32. Plaintiff sustained a loss(es) due to the civil authority orders issued by 

the Governor of Florida addressing SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic. 

These actions restricted access to the insured premises, resulting in a loss of use of 

the insured premises by Plaintiff.

33. Plaintiff filed a claim of loss with Defendants on July 30, 2020, 

claiming losses due to coronavirus and related government-mandated closures.

Plaintiff provided a recorded statement to Southern-Owners on August 18, 2020.

34. On August 26, 2020, Defendants issued a Coverage Position Letter 

denying the claim.7

 Southern-Owners stated that there was no direct physical loss 

 7 Attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 9 of 18
10

or damage to the insured premises, and asserted that the loss was a result of a 

government “seizure or destruction” of the insured property.

35. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel form of coronavirus which causes the disease 

COVID-19, a potentially lethal disease. It is from the same family of viruses as the 

virus which was behind the SARS outbreak in 2003.8

36. As a virus, SARS-CoV-2 is a physical substance, and can be present 

both inside and outside the human body in viral fluid particles. Although it is not 

visible to the naked eye, the virus particle does have a measurable size and mass.9

37. SARS-CoV-2 can and does remain capable of being transmitted and 

active on inert physical surfaces for a period of time. Studies have established that 

the virus particles can remain on certain surfaces for days, and even weeks, while 

remaining contagious.10

38. SARS-CoV-2 can and does remain capable of being transmitted and 

active on floors, walls, desks, tables, chairs, utensils, and clothing. The materials 

are present in virtually all workplaces, including restaurants like Plaintiff’s.

39. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by way of human contact with 

surfaces on which SARS-CoV-2 is physically present.11 SARS-CoV-2 has been 

 8 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30484-9/fulltext. 9 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30323-4/fulltext. 10 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-suggests-new-coronavirus-mayremain-surfaces-days; https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54500673.

11 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 10 of 18
11

transmitted by way of human contact with surfaces and items of physical property 

located in the State of Florida, including in Escambia County.

40. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by human to human contact and 

interaction at premises in Florida, including restaurants.

12 Studies have established 

that virus particles can be transmitted by direct human contact as well as by 

inhalation of virus particles expelled from the lungs of infected individuals.13 

SARS-CoV-2 has been transmitted by human to human contact and interaction at 

premises in the State of Florida, including Escambia County. 

41. The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 particle renders items of physical 

property or premises unsafe. The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 particle on 

physical property impairs its value, usefulness and/or normal function.

42. The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 particle causes direct physical 

harm to property, direct physical loss of property, and direct physical damage to 

property.

43. The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 at premises renders the premises 

unsafe, thereby impairing the premises’ value, usefulness and/or normal function. 

44. The presence of people infected with or carrying SARS-CoV-2 

particles renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable, resulting 

in direct physical loss to that property.

 12 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html.

13 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/scientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 11 of 18
12

45. The presence of people infected with or carrying SARS-CoV-2 

particles at premises renders the premises, including property located at that 

premises, unsafe, resulting in direct physical loss to the premises and property.

46. When SARS-CoV-2 enters the body, it can reproduce rapidly, 

especially in the lungs, leading to the infected developing COVID-19. COVID-19 

is characterized by numerous serious complications, including pneumonia, 

respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, heart arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, acute 

kidney injury, and additional secondary viral or bacterial infections due to the 

weakened immune system.14

47. To date, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has 

identified over 13,000 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 and over 250 deaths due 

to COVID-19 in Escambia County, Florida, and over 750,000 cases and over 

16,000 deaths statewide.15

48. The CDC has published guidance for all public spaces and business 

prior to reopening after SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. The CDC guidance focused 

“on cleaning and disinfecting public spaces, workplaces, businesses, schools, and 

[homes].”16

 14 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30558-4/fulltext.

15 https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html#county-map. 

16 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/reopen-guidance.html.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 12 of 18
13

49. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) is a company that 

provides advice and consultation to the insurance industry. This includes drafting 

of standard insurance forms, such as coverage forms, endorsements, and 

exclusions. The Policy utilizes, in part, policy forms and language published by 

ISO, as reflected by the ISO copyright designation at the bottom of numerous 

pages of the Policy.

50. Prior to the effective date of the Policy, ISO published and made 

available for use a standard virus exclusion form. Defendants did not include the 

ISO standard virus exclusion form in the policy. The Policy includes no exclusion 

that references the word virus, nor does it mention the word virus at any point in 

the Policy.

51. Defendants were aware of the existence of forms that could have 

excluded viruses from coverage and declined to include them in the Policy.

52. The term “Civil Authority” is not defined in the Policy, either in the 

Building and Personal Property Coverage Form or the Business Income and Extra 

Expense endorsement.

53. The State of Florida is a civil authority as contemplated by the Policy.

54. Plaintiff did not qualify as an essential business under Governor 

DeSantis’ Executive Order 20-91.

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 13 of 18
14

55. The State of Florida has issued authoritative orders governing 

Floridians and Florida businesses, including Plaintiff, in response to SARS-CoV-2 

and the COVID-19 pandemic, which required Plaintiff to cease and/or significantly 

reduce operations at the insured premises described in the Policy.

56. SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are physically impacting 

public and private property in Florida and throughout the country.

57. SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic have caused and continue 

to cause direct physical loss and damage to property.

58. People in Florida, including within Escambia, have been diagnosed 

with COVID-19. Furthermore, there are people in Florida, including within 

Escambia County, who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developed the

COVID-19 disease, but who have not been diagnosed.

59. People in Florida and Escambia County have SARS-CoV-2 particles 

on or about their person and personal property.

60. Properties and premises throughout Florida contain the presence of 

SARS-CoV-2 particles on surfaces and items of property.

61. SARS-CoV-2 particles have been physically present at Plaintiff’s 

premises described in the Policy during the Policy period. 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 14 of 18
15

62. Individuals carrying SARS-CoV-2 particles in, on, or about their 

person have been present at Plaintiff’s premises described in the Policy during the 

Policy period.

63. Airborne SARS-CoV-2 particles have been physically present at 

Plaintiff’s premises described in the Policy during the Policy period.

64. Plaintiff has sustained direct physical loss and damage to items of 

property located at its premises and direct physical loss and amage to its premises 

described by the Policy as a result of the presence of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, 

and / or the COVID-19 pandemic.

COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the facts 

set forth in paragraphs 1–60 above.

66. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), provides that in 

“a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United 

States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party 

seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2201(a).

67. The Policy is an insurance contract under which Defendants were paid 

premiums in exchange for their promise to pay Plaintiff’s losses for claims covered 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 15 of 18
16

by the Policy, such as business losses incurred as a result a covered loss, including 

losses cause by the loss of use of the premises due to the presence of the virus.

68. Plaintiff has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies, 

including payment of the premiums in exchange for coverage under the Policies.

69. Defendants have refused to reimburse Plaintiffs for any losses 

incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the loss of use of the property due to the 

presence of the virus.

70. Defendants have refused to reimburse Plaintiffs for any losses 

incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the loss of use of the premises due to 

orders by civil authority.

71. An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and the Defendant 

as to the rights, duties, responsibilities and obligations of the parties under the 

Policy in that Plaintiff contends and, on information and belief, the Defendants 

dispute and deny that:

a. The coronavirus creates any direct physical damage or loss as defined 

under the policy;

b. The Policy provides coverage to Plaintiff for any current and future 

civil authority closures due to physical loss or damage directly or 

indirectly from the Coronavirus under the Civil Authority coverage 

parameters; 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 16 of 18
17

c. The Policy provides business income and extra expense coverage in 

the event that Coronavirus has directly or indirectly caused a loss or 

damage at the insured premises or immediate area of the Insured 

Property; and

d. Resolution of the duties, responsibilities and obligation of the parties 

is necessary as no adequate remedy at law exists and a declaration of 

the Court is needed to resolve the dispute and controversy.

72. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment as to whether the presence of 

SARS-CoV-2 on the insured premises constitutes a “physical loss of or damage to”

the insured property.

73. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment as to whether losses due to 

SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 constitute a covered loss under the Business and 

Personal Property Coverage Form in the Policy.

74. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment as to whether Plaintiff is entitled 

to coverage under the Business Income and Extra Expense form in the Policy.

75. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment as to whether Plaintiff is entitled 

to coverage under the civil authority provisions in the Policy.

76. Plaintiff does not seek any determination of whether SARS-CoV-2

was physically present in or at the insured premises, amount of damages, or any 

other remedy other than declaratory relief. 

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 17 of 18
18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TL Goodson LLC respectfully requests this court 

render Declaratory Judgment for the Plaintiff that the Policy provides coverage for 

Plaintiff’s business losses under the Policy’s Business Income and Extra Expense 

endorsement, and ORDER Defendants to provide coverage and proceed to 

adjustment of the value of the claim.

/s/ Wesley A. Bowden 

WESLEY A. BOWDEN, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 64217

T. ALEXANDER TAYLOR, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 0125308

LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY

PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O’BRIEN, 

BARR & MOUGEY, P.A

316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600

Pensacola, FL 32502

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:21-cv-00178-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 18 of 18