Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

Christopher A. Seeger 

Stephen A. Weiss 

Christopher L. Ayers 

SEEGER WEISS 

55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor 

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660 

(973) 639-9100 

James E. Cecchi 

Lindsey H. Taylor 

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI 

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 

5 Becker Farm Road 

Roseland, New Jersey 07068 

(973) 994-1700 

Samuel H. Rudman 

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 

 & DOWD LLP 

58 South Service Road, Suite 200 

Melville, NY 11747 

(631) 367-7100 

Paul J. Geller 

Stuart A. Davidson 

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 

 & DOWD LLP 

120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 

Boca Raton, Florida 33432 

(561) 750-3000 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

CHIEF OF STAFF LLC, on behalf of itself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC. 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03169 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiff Chief of Staff LLC by way of Complaint against Defendant Hiscox Insurance 

Company Inc. (“Defendant” or “Hiscox”), alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization (“WHO”) Director General Tedros 

Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a worldwide pandemic: “WHO has been 

assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:200
2 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction. We have therefore made the 

assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.”1

2. On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic to be a 

national emergency.2 On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(“CDC”), and members of the national Coronavirus Task Force issued to the American public 

guidance, styled as “30 Days to Slow the Spread” for stopping the spread of COVID-19. This 

guidance advised individuals to adopt far-reaching social distancing measures, such as working 

from home, avoiding shopping trips and gatherings of more than ten people, and staying away 

from bars, restaurants, and food courts.3

3. Following this advice for individuals to adopt far-reaching social distancing 

measures, many state government administrations across the nation recognized the need to take 

steps to protect the health and safety of their residents from the human to human and surface to 

human spread of COVID-19. As a result, many governmental entities entered civil authority orders 

suspending or severely curtailing business operations of non-essential businesses that interact with 

the public and provide gathering places for the individuals. Currently, almost all states within 

 

1

 See World Health Organization, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media 

briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), 

https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mediabriefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020. 

2

 See The White House, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the 

Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13. 2020), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergencyconcerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. 

3 See The President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, 30 Days to Slow the Spread, 

WHITE HOUSE, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirusguidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf (last visited Apr. 27, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:201
3 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

the United States have issued some sort of “stay-at-home” order and ordered private non-essential 

business operations to close. 

4. The result of these far-reaching restrictions and prohibitions has been catastrophic 

for most non-essential businesses, especially restaurants and other foodservice businesses, as well 

as retail establishments, entertainment venues, and other small, medium, and large businesses who 

have been forced to close, furlough employees, and endure a sudden shutdown of cash flow that 

threatens their survival. 

5. Restaurants provide economic benefits far beyond their own business. They are 

anchors to revitalizing down-and-out neighborhoods and can become a tourist attraction 

themselves, as well as a key part of the identity of smaller cities and large towns.4

6. In addition to their contribution to the national economy in providing jobs, 

restaurants are also vital to the national spirit because shared meals are an important mental relief. 

As Oscar Wilde noted, “After a good dinner, one can forgive anybody, even one’s relations.” 

7. Moreover, food is part of the national psyche. As Anthony Bourdain noted, “Food 

is everything we are. It’s an extension of nationalist feeling, ethnic feeling, your personal history, 

your province, your region, your tribe, your grandma. It’s inseparable from those from the getgo.” 

8. Most businesses insure against such catastrophic events like the current unforeseen 

COVID-19 pandemic through all-risk commercial property insurance policies. These policies 

promise to indemnify the policyholder for actual business losses incurred when business 

 

4

 Jennifer Steinhauer, et al., As Restaurants Remain Shuttered, American Cities Fear the 

Future, N.Y. TIMES (May 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/coronavirusrestaurants-closings.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (last 

visited July 2, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:202
4 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, curtailed, when access to the premises is 

prohibited because of direct physical loss or damage to the property, or by a civil authority order 

that restricts or prohibits access to the property. This coverage is commonly known as “business 

interruption coverage” and is standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance policies. 

9. Defendant, and most insurance companies who have issued all- risk commercial 

property insurance policies with business interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay 

for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical 

loss and damage to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to stop 

the spread of COVID-19 among the population. This action seeks a declaratory judgment that 

affirms that the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil authorities to stop 

the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss and damage to the 

insured property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that result in future 

suspensions or curtailments of business operations, and finds that Defendant is liable for the losses 

suffered by policyholders. 

10. In addition, this action brings a claim against Defendant for breach of its contractual 

obligation under common all-risk commercial property insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiff 

and others similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and related losses resulting 

from actions taken by civil authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human spread of 

the COVID-19 outbreak. 

11. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of policyholders who paid 

premiums in exchange for business insurance policies that included lost business income and extra 

expense coverage 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:203
5 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) in that 

this is a class action in which the Amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs, and at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a different State than that of 

the Defendant. 

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in that Defendant 

does business in this District and thus reside in this District, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(c). 

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Chief of Staff LLC (“Chief of Staff”) is a Connecticut corporation with its 

principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. Chief of Staff operates a hospitality support 

agency. 

15. As a result of the Closure Orders reference below, Chief of Staff had to cease 

operations. 

16. Defendant Hiscox Insurance is a Chicago, Illinois domiciled corporation licensed 

to do business in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. .

17. Hiscox issued to Chief of Staff Policy No. UDC-1575520-20-BOP-20 for the 

period between April 30, 2020 and April 30, 2021. This was a renewal of Policy No. UDC1575520-20-BOP 19 that Hiscox issued to Chief of Staff for period between April 30 2019 and 

April 30 2020. Both policies were the same in all material respects. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Global COVID-19 Pandemic 

18. Viruses of the family Coronaviridae, such as Middle East respiratory syndrome 

(MERS) coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:204
6 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

(SARS-CoV), have been responsible for the loss of human life since at least 2002 and were 

identified in several animal hosts.5

 

19. In December 2019, an initial cluster of patients with an unknown cause of viral 

pneumonia was found to be linked to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, China, where many 

non-aquatic animals such as birds were also on sale. However, at least one of the patients never 

visited the market, though he had stayed in a hotel nearby before the onset of the illness.6 

20. By January 2020, genetic sequencing from patient samples was conducted to 

identify a novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, as the causative agent for the pneumonia cluster.7 SARSCoV-2 is an RNA virus, with a crown-like appearance under an electron microscope because of 

glycoprotein spikes on its envelope. Among the functions of the structural proteins, the envelope 

has a crucial role in virus pathogenicity as it promotes viral assembly and release.8

 

5

 See Roujian Lu, et al., Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel 

coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding, CTR. FOR DISEASE CONTROL, 

(Jan. 29, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/genomiccharacterization-of-2019-nCoV-Lancet-1-29-2020.pdf (As a typical RNA virus, the average 

evolutionary rate for coronaviruses is roughly 10-4 nucleotide substitutions per site per year, with 

mutations arising during every replication cycle. This finding suggests that COVID-19 originated 

from one source within a short period and was detected rapidly. However, as the virus transmits 

to more individuals, constant surveillance of arising mutations is needed. The fact that at least one 

patient had not visited the market suggests either possible droplet transmission or that the patient 

was infected by a currently unknown source. Evidence of clusters of infected family members and 

medical workers has now confirmed the presence of human-to-human transmission.).

6

 See id; Francesco Di Gennaro et al., Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) Current Status 

and Future Perspectives a Narrative Review, MDPI: INT’L J. ENVTL. RESEARCH & PUB. HEALTH, 

(Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2690 (There are four genera of 

coronaviruses: (I) α-coronavirus (alphaCoV) and (II) β-coronavirus (betaCoV), which are 

probably present in bats and rodents; and (III) δ-coronavirus (deltaCoV) and (IV) γ-coronavirus 

(gammaCoV), which probably represent avian species.). 

7

 See Di Gennaro, supra note 6. 

8

 See id. (To address the pathogenetic mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2, its viral structure and 

genome must be considered. Coronaviruses are enveloped positive strand RNA viruses with the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:205
7 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

21. The first confirmed case of the virus outside China was diagnosed on January 13, 

2020, in Bangkok, Thailand with the number of cases exceedingly increasing worldwide. On 

January 30, 2020, the WHO declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak constituted a public health 

emergency of international concern, and by February 11, 2020, the disease caused by SARS-CoV2 was named “COVID-19” by the WHO Director-General.9

 As of April 23, 2020, the WHO 

reported a confirmed 2.5 million cases of COVID-19 globally and over 170,000 deaths, with the 

United States dealing with more than 800,000 confirmed cases and 40,000 deaths – more than any 

other country.10 

22. The clinical features of COVID-19 vary from asymptomatic forms to fatal 

conditions of severe respiratory failure that requires ventilation and support in an intensive care 

unit (“ICU”). Pneumonia has been the most frequent severe manifestation of COVID-19, with 

symptoms of fever, cough, dyspnea, and bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging.11 There are no 

specific treatments recommended for COVID-19, and no vaccine is currently available; so 

understanding the complexities of COVID-19 is ongoing.12

 

largest known RNA genomes – 30-32 kb – with a 5’-cap structure and 3’-poly-A tail.). 

9

 See id. 

10 See Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 94, WORLD HEALTH 

ORGANIZATION (Apr. 23, 2020) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situationreports/20200423-sitrep-94-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=b8304bf0_4. 

11 See Di Gennaro, supra note 6 (Asymptomatic infections have also been described, but their 

frequency is unknown. Other, less common symptoms have included headaches, sore throat, and 

rhinorrhea. Along with respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., nausea and 

diarrhea) have also been reported, and in some patients, they may be the presenting complaint.). 

12 See id. (The treatment is symptomatic, and oxygen therapy represents the major treatment 

intervention for patients with severe infection. Mechanical ventilation may be necessary in cases 

of respiratory failure refractory to oxygen therapy, whereas hemodynamic support is essential for 

managing septic shock. Different strategies can be used depending on the severity of the patient 

and local epidemiology. Home management is appropriate for asymptomatic or paucisymtomatic 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:206
8 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

23. It has now been discovered by scientists that COVID-19 has several modes of 

transmission. Pursuant to a “Situation Report” released by the WHO, the virus can be transmitted 

through symptomatic transmission, presymptomatic transmission, or asymptomatic 

transmission.13 Symptomatic transmission refers to transmission by an individual who is 

experiencing symptoms associated with the virus who then transfers COVID-19 to another 

individual. Data from published studies provide evidence that COVID-19 is primarily transmitted 

from symptomatic people to others who are in close contact through respiratory droplets, by direct 

contact with infected persons, or by contact with contaminated objects and surfaces.14

24. The incubation period for COVID-19, which is the time between exposure to the 

virus (becoming infected) and symptom onset, averages 5-6 days, however, it can be up to 14 

days.15 During this period, also known as the “presymptomatic” period, some infected persons 

can be contagious. For that reason, transmission from a presymptomatic case can occur before 

symptom onset. Presymptomatic transmission still requires the virus to be spread through 

infectious droplets or touching contaminated surfaces.16

 

patients. They need a daily assessment of body temperature, blood pressure, oxygen saturation 

and respiratory symptoms for about 14 days. Management of such patients should focus on 

prevention of transmission to others and monitoring for clinical status with prompt hospitalization 

if needed.). 

13 See World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report 

– 73 (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situationreports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=5ae25bc7_2. 

14 See id. (Data from clinical and virologic studies that have collected repeated biological 

samples from confirmed patients provide evidence that shedding of the COVID-19 virus is highest 

in the upper respiratory tract (nose and throat) early in the course of the disease. That is, within 

the first three days from onset of symptoms. Preliminary data suggests that people may be more 

contagious around the time of symptom onset as compared to later on in the disease.). 

15 See id.

16 See id. (In a small number of case reports and studies, pre-symptomatic transmission has 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:207
9 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

25. An individual who does not develop symptoms, an asymptomatic case of 

COVID-19, can still transmit the virus to another. Though there are few documented cases 

reported, it does not exclude the possibility that it has or may occur.17

26. Not only is COVID-19 transmitted via human-to-human, but the WHO and 

scientific studies have confirmed that the virus can live on contaminated objects or surfaces. 

According to a study by scientists documented in The New England Journal of Medicine, 

COVID-19 was detectable in aerosols for up to three hours, up to four hours on copper, up to 

24 hours on cardboard, and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.18 All of these 

materials are used in the preparation and service of food by restaurants. The results of the study 

suggest that individuals could get COVID-19 through indirect contact with surfaces or objects 

used by an infected person, whether or not they were symptomatic. 

27. Another scientific study documented in the Journal of Hospital Infection found that 

human coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV can remain infectious on inanimate 

 

been documented through contact tracing efforts and enhanced investigation of clusters of 

confirmed cases. This is supported by data suggesting that some people can test positive for 

COVID-19 from 1-3 days before they develop symptoms. Thus, it is possible that people infected 

with COVID-19 can transmit the virus before significant symptoms develop.). 

17 See id.

18 See News Release, New coronavirus stable for hours on surfaces, NAT’L INSTS. OF HEALTH

(Mar. 17, 2020), https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-coronavirus-stable-hourssurfaces; see also World Health Organization, Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: 

implications for IPC (Mar. 29, 2020), https://www.who.int/newsroom/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-foripc-precaution-recommendations (Airborne transmission of COVID-19 “may be possible in 

specific circumstances and settings in which procedures or support treatments that generate 

aerosols are performed; i.e., endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, 

administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, turning the patient to 

the prone position, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, non-invasive positive-pressure 

ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:208
10 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

surfaces at room temperature for up to nine days.19 At a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius or 

more, the duration of persistence is shorter. Contamination of frequently touched surfaces is, 

therefore, a potential source of viral transmission.20 Though this study was not conclusive on 

COVID-19 itself, scientists are still grappling to understand this implication. 

28. On March 27, 2020, the CDC released a report entitled “Public Health Responses 

to COVID-19 Outbreaks on Cruise Ships - Worldwide, February - March 2020.”21 The report 

detailed that during this time frame, COVID-19 outbreaks associated with three different cruise 

ship voyages caused over 800 confirmed cases and ten deaths.22 Of the individuals tested, a high 

proportion were found to be asymptomatic, which may explain the high rates on cruise ships. What 

is interesting about this study though, is that COVID-19 was identified on a variety of surfaces in 

 

19 See G. Kampf et al., Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their 

inactivation with biocidal agents, J. HOSPITAL INFECTION (Jan. 31, 2020),

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/ 

action/showPdf?pii=S0195-6701%2820% 2930046-3. 

20 See id. (Although the viral load of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces is not known during 

an outbreak situation, it seems plausible to reduce the viral load on surfaces by disinfection, 

especially of frequently touched surfaces in the immediate area surrounding a patient where the 

highest viral load can be expected. The WHO recommends ensuring that “environmental cleaning 

and disinfection procedures are followed consistently and correctly.”). 

21 See Leah F. Moriarty, MPH, Public Health Responses to COVID-19 Outbreaks on Cruise 

Ships - Worldwide, February - March 2020, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION (Mar. 

27, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm?s_cid= mm6912e3_w. 

22 See id. (“During February 7-23, 2020, the largest cluster of COVID-19 cases outside 

mainland China occurred on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined in the port 

of Yokohama, Japan, on February 3. . . . On March 6, cases of COVID-19 were identified in 

persons on the Grand Princess cruise ship off the coast of California; that ship was subsequently 

quarantined. By March 17, confirmed cases of COVID-19 had been associated with at least 25 

additional cruise ship voyages. On February 21, CDC recommended avoiding travel on cruise 

ships in Southeast Asia; on March 8, this recommendation was broadened to include deferring all 

cruise ship travel worldwide for those with underlying health conditions and for persons [over] 65 

years. On March 13, the Cruise Lines International Association announced a 30-day voluntary 

suspension of cruise operations in the United States. CDC issued a level 3 travel warning on March 

17, recommending that all cruise travel be deferred worldwide.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:209
11 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins were 

vacated on the Diamond Princess cruise line, but before disinfection procedures had been 

conducted.23 The CDC notes that more studies are required to understand the perpetuation of 

transmission, but what is clear is the uncertainty around COVID-19 and its implications for the 

lawful and safe functioning of a variety of businesses, most significantly, food service businesses. 

29. Without a vaccine to protect against COVID-19, effective control of the outbreak 

relies on measures designed to reduce human-to-human and surface-to-human exposure. Recent 

information on the CDC’s website provides that COVID-19 spreads when people are within six 

feet of each other or when a person comes in contact with a surface or object that has the virus on 

it.24 Various other sources state that close contact with a person with the virus or surfaces where 

the virus is found can transmit the virus.25

 

23 See id. (“Cruise ships are often settings for outbreaks of infectious diseases because of their 

closed environment, contact between travelers from many countries, and crew transfers between 

ships. On the Diamond Princess, transmission largely occurred among passengers before 

quarantine was implemented, whereas crew infections peaked after quarantine. . . . On the Grand 

Princess, crew members were likely infected on voyage A and then transmitted [COVID-19] to 

passengers on voyage B. The results of testing of passengers and crew on board the Diamond 

Princess demonstrated a high proportion (46.5%) of asymptomatic infections at the time of testing. 

Available statistical models of the Diamond Princess outbreak suggest that 17.9% of infected 

persons never developed symptoms. . . . A high proportion of asymptomatic infections could 

partially explain the high attack rate among cruise ship passengers and crew. . . . Although these 

data cannot be used to determine whether transmission occurred from contaminated surfaces, 

further study of fomite transmission of [COVID-19] aboard cruise ships is warranted.”). 

24 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How COVID-19 Spreads, 

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

(last visited Apr. 27, 2020). 

25 See Kampf, supra note 19 (remains infectious from two hours to 28 days depending on 

conditions); see also Nina Bai, Why One Test May Not Be Enough, UCSF (Feb. 13, 2020), 

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/02/416671/how-new-coronavirus-spreads-and-progresses-andwhy-one-test-may-not-be-enough (door knobs and table tops can contain the virus); Heather 

Murphy, Surfaces? Sneezes? Sex? How the Coronavirus Can and Cannot Spread, N.Y. TIMES

(Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/health/coronavirus-how-it-spreads.html 

(virus can remain on metal and plastic for several days). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:210
12 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

30. The secondary exposure of the surface-to-humans is particularly acute in places 

where the public gathers typically to socialize, eat, drink, shop, be entertained, and go for 

recreation. This is why the CDC recommends that in viral outbreaks individuals who are infected 

stay at home and those who are not sick engage in preventive measures such as constant hand 

washing and avoiding activities that would bring them into close proximity of people with the 

virus or surfaces where the virus may reside. However, because these recommendations have 

proven ineffective to minimize the spread of COVID-19, containment efforts have led to civil 

authorities issuing orders closing many business establishments, including restaurants, bars, hotels, 

theaters, personal care salons, gyms, and schools, and mandating social distancing among the 

population. This has caused the cancelation of sporting events, parades, and concerts, the closure 

of amusement parks, and substantial travel restrictions. In addition, to conserve medical supplies, 

orders have been issued prohibiting the performance of non-urgent or non-emergency elective 

procedures and surgeries, forcing the suspension of operations at many medical, surgical, 

therapeutic, and dental practices. 

31. Such “stay-at-home” orders are or were in effect in all but five states: 35 states 

closed all non-essential businesses with other states enacting measures to curtail business 

operations; all 50 states closed schools; and all but one state closed restaurants and bars for services 

other than take-out and delivery (the “Closure Orders”).26 

32. Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont first issued a Closure Order on March 12, 2020. 

On March 16, 2020, Governor Lamont expanded the Closure Order to close bars and restaurants 

for all service except food and non-alcoholic bereave takeout. And on March 20, 2020 Governor 

 

26 See Kaiser Family Foundation, State Data and Policy Actions to Address Coronavirus 

(Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-toaddress-coronavirus/. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:211
13 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

Lamont expanded the Closure Order and prohibited access to all nonessential businesses and notfor-profit enterprises, ordering a 100% reduction in workforces no later than March 23, 2020.27

B. Defendants’ Standard Uniform All-Risk Commercial Property Insurance Policies 

33. Hiscox’s insurance policies issued to Plaintiff and the Class Members are “all risk” 

commercial property polices which cover loss or damage to the covered premises resulting from 

all risks other than those expressly excluded. 

34. Plaintiff’s Policies, as well as the policies of other Class Members, are standard 

forms that are used by Hiscox for all insureds having applicable coverage. 

35. Plaintiff and other Class Members had a reasonable expectation that their all-risk 

commercial property policies would cover losses in the event their businesses were forced to close 

by order of civil authority. 

C. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations 

36. Among the coverages provided by the Policy were business interruption insurance, 

which, generally, would indemnify Plaintiff for lost income and profits if its business was shut 

down. 

37. Plaintiff’s Businessowners Coverage Form, Form BP 00 03 01 10, provided 

coverage as follows: 

f. Business Income 

(a) We 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 suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or 

damage to property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be 

caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss. With respect to loss of

or damage to personal property in the open or personal property in a vehicle, 

the described premises include the area within 100 feet of the site at which 

the described premises are located.” 

 

27 https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-ExecutiveOrders/Executive-Order-No-7H.pdf

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:212
14 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

38. Under Plaintiff’s Businessowners Coverage Form, Business Income is defined as: 

(i). Net Income (Net Profit or Net Loss before income taxes) that would have been 

earned or incurred if no physical loss or damage had occurred but not including any 

New Income that would likely have been earned as a result of an increase in the 

volume of business due to favorable business conditions caused by the impact of 

the Covered Cause of Loss on customers or on other businesses; and 

(ii) Continuing normal operating expenses incurred, including payroll. 

39. In addition, Plaintiff’s Businessowners Coverage Form provided coverage as 

follows: 

g. Extra Expense 

(1) We will pay necessary Extra Expense you incur during the "period 

of restoration" that you would not have incurred if there had been 

no direct physical loss or damage to property at the described 

premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a 

Covered Cause of Loss. With respect to loss of or damage to 

personal property in the open or personal property in a vehicle, the 

described premises include the area within 100 feet of the site at 

which the described premises are located. 

40. Plaintiff’s Businessowners Coverage Form defines Extra Expense as expenses 

incurred: 

(a) To avoid or minimize the suspension of business and to continue 

“operations” 

(i) At the described premises; or 

(ii) At replacement premises or at temporary locations, including: 

relocation expenses, and costs to equip and operate the replacement 

or temporary locations. 

(b) To minimize the suspension of business if you cannot continue 

“operations”. 

(c) To: 

(i) Repair or replace any property, or 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:213
15 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

(ii) Research, replace or restore the lost information on damaged 

“valuable papers and records”; 

To the extent it reduces the amount of loss that otherwise would 

have been payable under this Additional Coverage or Additional 

Coverage f. Business Income. 

41. Plaintiff’s Business owners Coverage Form also provided coverage as follows: 

i. Civil Authority 

When a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property other than property at 

the described premises, we will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you 

sustain and necessary Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that 

prohibits access to the described premises, provided that both of the following 

apply: 

(1) Access to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is 

prohibited by civil authority as a result of the damage, and the described 

premises are within that area but are not more than one mile from the 

damaged property; and 

(2) The action of civil authority is taken in response to dangerous physical 

conditions resulting from the damage or continuation of the Covered Cause 

of Loss that caused the damage, or the action is taken to enable a civil 

authority to have unimpeded access to the damaged property. 

42. Under Plaintiff’s Policies, a Covered Cause of Loss is any“[r]isk[] of direct physical 

loss unless the loss is” excluded under the policy. 

43. Plaintiff and all similarly situated Class members have suffered a direct physical 

loss of their property because they have been unable to use their property for its intended purpose. 

44. The interruption of Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ businesses was not caused 

by any of the exclusions set forth in the applicable Policies. 

45. Plaintiff’s Businessowners Coverage Form contains an exclusion for losses caused 

by: 

Any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable off inducing 

physical distress, illness or disease. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:214
16 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

46. The virus exclusion endorsement does not apply because Plaintiff’s and other Class 

members’ losses were not caused by a “virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is 

capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease”. Rather, the sole and proximate cause of 

Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ losses were the Closure Orders, not because coronavirus was 

found in or on Plaintiff’s or the Class’ insured property. 

47. The Closure Orders fully prohibited access to Plaintiff’s property. 

48. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by way of email dated May 15, 2020, Hiscox denied 

Plaintiff’s claims for business interruption losses under the Policies claiming that the business 

income loss has not been caused as a result of direct physical loss or damage property at the 

premises, and that the policy contains an exclusion for any damages caused directly or indirectly 

by a virus. 

D. The Closure Orders have Affected Policyholders Nationwide. 

49. The Closure Orders are physically impacting private commercial property 

throughout the United States and the State of Connecticut, threatening the survival of thousands 

of restaurants, retail establishments, and other businesses that have had their business operations 

suspended or curtailed indefinitely by order of civil authorities. 

50. Hiscox does not intend to cover losses caused by the Closure Orders as part of 

business interruption coverage. As alleged above, Hiscox denied Plaintiff’s claim, even though 

Plaintiff was forced to close due to the Closure Orders. On information and belief, Hiscox has 

denied similar claims by other Class members across-the-board, a practice which is belied by not 

only the express terms of the insurance policies, but also: (a) the Small Business Administration’s 

requirement that “reimbursement” from “business interruption insurance” be submitted along with 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:215
17 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

an application for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) loan;28 and (b) America’s SBDC, 

whose COVID-19 newsletter expressly states, “Business interruption insurance also applies if 

government actions cause operations to cease temporarily, which results in a loss for a firm.”29

51. As a result, many small businesses that maintain commercial multi-peril insurance 

policies with business interruption coverage will have significant uninsured losses absent 

declaratory relief from this Court. Indeed, even if state and local governments re-open, small 

businesses will almost certainly still be under social-distancing mandates and will continue to 

experience diminishing revenues due to the loss of covered property. 

52. A declaratory judgment determining that the business income loss and extra 

expense coverage provided in standard commercial property insurance policies applies to the 

suspension, curtailment, and interruption of business operations resulting from measures put into 

place by civil authorities is necessary to prevent Plaintiff and similarly situated Class members 

from being denied critical coverage for which they have paid premiums. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

53. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 

(b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. 

54. The Nationwide Class is defined as: 

All entities who have entered into standard all-risk commercial property 

insurance policies with Hiscox, where such policies provide for business 

income loss and extra expense coverage and do not exclude coverage for 

pandemics, and who have suffered losses due to measures put in place by 

 

28 Applying for SBA Disaster Loans (EIDL) at 12, U.S. SMALL BUS. ADMIN. (Mar. 26, 2020), 

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/articles/EIDL_Information_and_Documentation_-_3-30-

2020_FINAL_2_pm.pdf (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). 

29 COVID-19: The Latest News and Resources for Your Business, at 15, AMERICA’S SBDC 

(Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcw2iw9vk2hcq9y/COVID%2019%20-

%20Rev6.pdf?dl=0 (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:216
18 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

civil authorities’ stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders since March 15, 

2020. 

 The Connecticut Sub-Class is defined as: 

All entities who have entered into standard all-risk commercial property 

insurance policies with Hiscox to insure property in Connecticut, where 

such policies provide for business income loss and extra expense 

coverage and do not exclude coverage for pandemics, and who have 

suffered losses due to measures put in place by civil authorities’ stay-athome or shelter-in-place orders since March 15, 2020. 

Excluded from each class are the Defendants, their employees, officers, directors, legal 

representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; 

Class Counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members 

and associated court staff assigned to this case. 

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

proposed classes following the discovery period and before the Court determines whether class 

certification is appropriate. 

56. Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiff can prove the elements of its claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as 

would prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.

Numerosity 

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

numbers at least in the hundreds and consists of geographically dispersed business entities who 

are insured for business interruption losses. Hiscox sells many insurance policies in the State of 

Connecticut and most, if not all, other states and therefore joinder of the Class members is 

impracticable. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:217
19 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

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

Class members can be identified in Hiscox’s or their agent’s books and records. Plaintiff 

anticipates providing appropriate notice to the certified Class in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 

23(c)(2)(A) and/or (B), to be approved by the Court after class certification, or pursuant to court 

order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d). 

 Typicality 

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

claims are typical of the claims of each of the Class members, as all Class members were and are 

similarly affected and their claims arise from the same all-risk commercial property insurance 

policy provisions entered into with Hiscox. Each Class member’s insurance policy contains the 

same form providing coverage for business income loss. None of the forms exclude coverage due 

to a governmental action intended to reduce the effect of the ongoing global pandemic. As a result, 

a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations under Plaintiff’s Policies will address the 

rights and obligations of all Class members. 

 Adequacy of Representation 

60. Plaintiff is committed to prosecuting the action, will fairly and adequately protect 

the interests of the members of the Class, and have retained counsel competent and experienced in 

class action litigation, including litigation relating to insurance policies. Plaintiff has no interests 

antagonistic to or in conflict with other members of the Class. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in 

the management of this litigation as a class action. 

 Commonality

61. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) because there are 

questions of law and fact that are common to each of the classes. These common questions 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:218
20 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. The questions of law 

and fact common to the Class include, but are not limited to: 

a. Whether there is an actual controversy between Plaintiff and Hiscox as to the rights, 

duties, responsibilities and obligations of the parties under the business interruption 

coverage provisions in standard all- risk commercial property insurance policies; 

b. Whether Closure Orders are excluded from Plaintiff’s and the Class members 

standard all-risk commercial property insurance policies; 

c. Whether the Closure Orders caused physical loss to covered commercial property; 

d. Whether Hiscox has repudiated and anticipatorily breached the all-risk commercial 

property insurance policies the issued with business interruption coverage by 

intending to deny claims for coverage; and 

e. Whether Plaintiff and the Class members suffered damages as a result of the 

anticipatory breach by Hiscox. 

 Superiority/Predominance 

62. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the rights of the Class 

members. The joinder of individual Class members is impracticable because of the vast number of 

Class members who have entered into the standard all-risk commercial property insurance policies 

with the Defendants. 

63. Because a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations under the uniform 

all-risk commercial property insurance policies will apply to all Class members, most or all Class 

Members would have no rational economic interest in individually controlling the prosecution of 

specific actions. The burden imposed on the judicial system by individual litigation, and to Hiscox, 

by even a small fraction of the Class members, would be enormous. 

64. In comparison to piecemeal litigation, class action litigation presents far fewer 

management difficulties, far better conserves the resources of both the judiciary and the parties, 

and far more effectively protects the rights of each Class member. The benefits to the legitimate 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 20 of 32 PageID #:219
21 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

interests of the parties, the Court, and the public resulting from class action litigation substantially 

outweigh the expenses, burdens, inconsistencies, economic infeasibility, and inefficiencies of 

individualized litigation. Class adjudication is superior to other alternatives under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(b)(3)(D). Class treatment will also avoid the substantial risk of inconsistent factual and legal 

determinations on the many issues in this lawsuit. 

65. Plaintiff knows of no obstacles likely to be encountered in the management of this 

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

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

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

certify nationwide and statewide classes for claims sharing common legal questions; use the 

provisions of Rule 23(c)(4) to certify particular claims, issues, or common questions of law or of 

fact for class-wide adjudication; certify and adjudicate bellwether class claims; and use Rule 

23(c)(5) to divide any Class into subclasses. 

Rule 23(b)(2) Certification 

66. This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The prosecution 

of separate actions by individual Class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudication with respect to individual Class members that would establish incompatible standards 

of conduct for the Defendant. 

67. In addition, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would 

create a risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive 

of the interests of other Class members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or 

impede their ability to protect their interests. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 21 of 32 PageID #:220
22 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

68. Defendant has also acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect 

to the members of the Class as a whole. 

COUNT I 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and Connecticut Subclass) 

69. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-68 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

National Class and Connecticut Subclass. 

71. Plaintiff’s Hiscox Policy, as well as those of the other Class members, are contracts 

under which Hiscox was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 

72. Plaintiff and other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions of 

the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hiscox or Hiscox is estopped from 

asserting them, and yet Hiscox 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 Plaintiff and Class members are entitled. 

73. Hiscox has denied claims related to Closure Orders on a uniform and class-wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, so the Court can render declaratory judgment no 

matter whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

74. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

members’ rights and Hiscox’s obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiff and Class 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 22 of 32 PageID #:221
23 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

members for the full Amount of Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiff and the other Class 

members in connection with the suspension of their businesses stemming from Closure Orders. 

75. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiff and the other Class members seek a 

declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiff’s and the other Class members’ Business Income losses incurred in 

connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their 

businesses stemming from those Orders are insured losses under their Policies; and 

ii. Hiscox is obligated to pay Plaintiff and other 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 those Orders. 

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and Connecticut Subclass) 

76. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-75 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

National Class and Connecticut Subclass. 

78. Plaintiff’s Hiscox Policy, as well as those of the other Class members, are contracts 

under which Hiscox was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 

79. In the business interruption coverage, Hiscox 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.” 

80. Hiscox also agreed to pay for its insureds’ actual loss of Business Income sustained 

due to the necessary “interruption of [their] operations” during the “Period of Restoration” caused 

by direct physical loss. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 23 of 32 PageID #:222
24 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

81. “Business Income” under the Policies means the “Net Income (Net Profit or Net 

Loss before income taxes), including Income and Royalties, that would have been earned or 

incurred”, as well as “[c]ontinuing normal operating expenses incurred, including payroll”. 

82. The Closure Orders caused direct physical loss to Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

members’ Covered Properties, requiring suspension of operations at the Covered Properties. 

Losses caused by the Closure Orders thus triggered the Business Income provision of Plaintiff’s 

and the other Class Members’ Hiscox policies. 

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

of their policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hiscox or Hiscox is estopped from 

asserting them, and yet Hiscox has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the 

Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms. 

84. By denying coverage for any Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiff and other 

Class members as a result of the Closure Orders, Hiscox has breached its coverage obligations 

under the Policies. 

85. As a result of Hiscox’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiff and the other Class 

members have sustained substantial damages for which Hiscox is liable, in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

COUNT III 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and Connecticut Subclass) 

86. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-85 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

National Class and Connecticut Subclass. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 24 of 32 PageID #:223
25 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

88. Plaintiff’s Hiscox Policy, as well as those of the other Class members, are contracts 

under which Hiscox was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s and other 

Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 

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

Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hiscox or Hiscox is estopped from asserting 

them, and yet Hiscox 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 Plaintiff and Class members are entitled. 

90. Hiscox has denied claims related to Closure Orders on a uniform and class wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, so the Court can render declaratory judgment no 

matter whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

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

rights and Hiscox’s obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiff and other Class members 

for the full amount of covered Civil Authority losses incurred by Plaintiff and other Class members 

in connection with Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming 

from Closure Orders. 

92. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiff and other Class Members seek a declaratory 

judgment from this Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ Civil Authority losses incurred in connection 

with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming 

from those Orders are insured losses under their Policies; and 

ii. Hiscox is obligated to pay Plaintiff and other 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 those Orders. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 25 of 32 PageID #:224
26 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

COUNT IV 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and Connecticut Subclasses) 

93. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-92 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

National Class and Connecticut Subclass. 

95. Plaintiff’s Policy, as well as those of the other Class members, are contracts under 

which Hiscox was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

members’ losses for claims covered by the policy. 

96. Plaintiff’s Policy provided for “Civil Authority” coverage, which promises to pay 

the actual loss of Business Income you sustain and necessary Extra Expense caused by action of 

civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises. 

97. The Closure Orders triggered the Civil Authority provision under Plaintiff’s and 

the other members of the Class’ Hiscox Policies. 

98. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have complied with all applicable 

provisions of the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hiscox or Hiscox is 

estopped from asserting them, and yet Hiscox has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations 

pursuant to the Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms. 

99. By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiff and other 

members of the Class in connection with the Closure Order and Orders, Hiscox has breached its 

coverage obligations under the Policies. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 26 of 32 PageID #:225
27 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

100. As a result of Hiscox’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class have sustained substantial damages for which Hiscox is liable, in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

COUNT V 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and Connecticut Subclass) 

101. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-100 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

National Class and the Connecticut Subclass. 

103. Plaintiff’s Hiscox Policy, as well as those of other Class Members, are contracts 

under which Hiscox was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s and other 

Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 

104. Plaintiff and other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions of 

the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hiscox or Hiscox is estopped from 

asserting them, and yet Hiscox 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 Plaintiff and Class members are entitled. 

105. Hiscox has denied claims related to Closure Orders on a uniform and class wide 

basis, without individual bases or investigations, so the Court can render declaratory judgment no 

matter whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 

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

rights and Hiscox’s obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiff and the other Class 

members for the full amount of Extra Expense losses incurred by Plaintiff and Class members in 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 27 of 32 PageID #:226
28 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

connection with Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from 

those Orders. 

107. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiff and other Class members seek a declaratory 

judgment from this Court declaring the following: 

i. Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ Extra Expense losses incurred in connection 

with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming 

from those Orders are insured losses under their Policies; and 

ii. Hiscox is obligated to pay Plaintiff and other 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 Orders during the period of restoration and the 

necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from those Orders. 

COUNT VI 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 

(Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and Connecticut Subclass) 

108. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-107 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

National Class and Connecticut Subclass. 

110. Plaintiff’s Hiscox Policy, as well as those of the other Class members, are contracts 

under which Hiscox was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class Members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 

111. Plaintiff’s Policy provided that Hiscox 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 to the described premises. “Extra Expense” means expenses 

“to avoid or minimize the suspension of business and to continue ‘operations,’” and to repair or 

replace property. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 28 of 32 PageID #:227
29 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

112. Due to the Closure Orders, Plaintiff and other members of the Class incurred Extra 

Expense at Covered Property 

113. Plaintiff and other members of the Class have complied with all applicable 

provisions of the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hiscox or Hiscox is 

estopped from asserting them, and yet Hiscox has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations 

pursuant to the Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms. 

114. By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiff and other 

members of the Class in connection with the Closure Orders, Hiscox has breached its coverage 

obligations under the Policies. 

115. As a result of Hiscox’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class have sustained substantial damages for which Hiscox is liable, in an amount to be 

established at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, demand 

judgment against the Defendants as follows: 

(1) Declaring this action to be a proper class action maintainable pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) and declaring Plaintiff and their counsel to be representatives of 

the Class; 

(2) Issuing a Declaratory Judgment declaring the Parties’ rights and obligations under 

the insurance policies; 

(3) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages from Hiscox’s breach of 

the insurance policies in an amount to be determined at trial, together with appropriate prejudgment 

interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 29 of 32 PageID #:228
30 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

(4) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class costs and disbursements and reasonable 

allowances for the fees of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s counsel and experts, and reimbursement of 

expenses; and 

(5) Awarding such other and further relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable. 

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff and the Class request a jury trial for all Counts for which a trial by jury is permitted 

by law. 

DATED: July 20, 2020 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 

 & DOWD LLP 

s/ Stuart A. Davidson 

 STUART A. DAVIDSON 

Paul J. Geller 

Stuart A. Davidson 

Bradley M. Beall 

120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 

Boca Raton, FL 33432 

Telephone: 561/750-3000 

561/750-3364 (fax) 

pgeller@rgrdlaw.com 

sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com 

bbeall@rgrdlaw.com 

 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 

 & DOWD LLP 

James E. Barz (IL Bar #6255605) 

Frank A. Richter (IL Bar #6310011) 

William J. Edelman (IL Bar #6332368) 

Gina M. Buschatzke (IL Bar #6332510) 

200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: 312/674-4674 

312/674-4676 (fax) 

jbarz@rgrdlaw.com 

frichter@rgrdlaw.com 

wedelman@rgrdlaw.com 

gbuschatzke@rgrdlaw.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 30 of 32 PageID #:229
31 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

 Samuel H. Rudman 

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 

 & DOWD LLP 

58 South Service Road, Suite 200 

Melville, NY 11747 

Telephone: 631/367-7100 

srudman@rgrdlaw.com 

 Christopher A. Seeger 

Stephen A. Weiss 

SEEGER WEISS 

77 Water Street, 8th Floor 

New York, New York 10005 

Telephone: 212/584-0700 

cseeger@seegerweiss.com 

sweiss@seegerweiss.com 

 James E. Cecchi 

Lindsey H. Taylor 

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI 

 OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 

5 Becker Farm Road 

Roseland, NJ 07068 

Telephone: 973/994-1700 

jcecchi@carellabyrne.com 

ltaylor@carellabyrne.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 31 of 32 PageID #:230
32 

Cases\4832-0720-4035.v1-7/20/20 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of 

electronic filing to all counsel of record. 

s/ Stuart A. Davidson 

 STUART A. DAVIDSON 

Case: 1:20-cv-03169 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 32 of 32 PageID #:231