UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 

PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2942

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER 

AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE ORDERS

Before the Panel:*

 There are two motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial

proceedings in this litigation. The first motion is brought by plaintiffs in the two Eastern District of

Pennsylvania actions listed on Schedule A (the Pennsylvania movants). The Pennsylvania movants

seek centralization of eleven actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The second motion is

brought by plaintiffs in seven actions pending in various districts (the Illinois movants).1

 The Illinois

movants request centralization of fifteen actions (the eleven on the first motion and five others) in

the Northern District of Illinois.2 All fifteen actions, which are listed on Schedule A, assert

declaratory judgment and/or breach of contract claims against plaintiffs’ respective providers of

commercial property insurance. Plaintiffs allege that these policies provide coverage for business

interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders

suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. In addition to the fifteen

actions on the motions, the Panel has received notice of 263 related actions. Collectively, these

actions are pending in 48 districts and name more than a hundred insurers. 

Plaintiffs in more than 175 actions or related actions responded to the motions. Many of

these plaintiffs support centralization in one of the two districts proposed by movants. Other

plaintiffs suggest the Northern District of California, Southern District of Florida, the Western

District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, and the Western District of Washington as potential

transferee districts for this litigation. Still other plaintiffs oppose centralization or ask to be excluded

from any MDL. 

Plaintiffs in more than thirty actions (some of which either support or oppose centralization

*

 Judges Karen K. Caldwell and David C. Norton took no part in the decision of this matter. 

1

 These movants include plaintiffs in: Central District of California Caribe Restaurant &

Nightclub, Inc.; Southern District of New York Gio Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC; Northern

District of Ohio Bridal Expressions LLC; Southern District of Ohio Troy Stacy Enterprises Inc.;

District of Oregon Dakota Ventures, LLC; Northern District of Texas Berkseth-Rojas; and Eastern

District of Wisconsin Rising Dough Inc.

2

 A sixteenth action on the second motion was voluntarily dismissed.

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:577 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 19
-2-

in the first instance) propose that, instead of creating the “industry-wide” MDL requested by the

movants, the Panel should centralize these insurance coverage actions on a state-by state, regional,

or insurer-by-insurer basis. These proposals, which were raised for the first time in the parties’

responses to the motions, encompass claims against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London;

Cincinnati Insurance Company; The Hartford; State Farm; and Westchester Surplus Lines/Chubb. 

These plaintiffs variously suggest ten districts for these narrower MDLs.

In total, thirty-two insurers or insurer-groups named as defendants in the related actions

responded to the motions.3

 Unlike plaintiffs, the defendants uniformly oppose centralization. 

Several defendants, in their Notices of Presentation or Waiver of Oral Argument, indicated

alternative support for one or more potential transferee districts. In addition to these defendants, one

non-party insurer group and several amici curiae filed responses in opposition to centralization.

After considering the arguments of counsel,4

 we conclude that the industry-wide

centralization requested by movants will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or

further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The proponents of centralization identify three

core common questions: (1) do the various government closure orders trigger coverage under the

policies; (2) what constitutes “physical loss or damage” to the property; and (3) do any exclusions

(particularly those related to viruses) apply. These questions, though, share only a superficial 

commonality. There is no common defendant in these actions—indeed, there are no true multidefendant cases, as the actions involve either a single insurer or insurer-group (i.e., related insurers

operating under the same umbrella or sharing ownership interests). Thus, there is little potential for

common discovery across the litigation. Furthermore, these cases involve different insurance

policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different

businesses in different industries located in different states. These differences will overwhelm any

common factual questions.5

 

The proponents of centralization argue that the insurers use standardized forms. Even so,

3

 Two responses by defendant insurers were submitted after the close of briefing and were

not considered by the Panel. See Notices of Major Deficiency, MDL No. 2942 (J.P.M.L. July 24,

2020), ECF Nos. 755 & 756.

4

 In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel heard

oral argument by videoconference at its hearing session of July 30, 2020. See Suppl. Notice of

Hearing Session, MDL No. 2942 (J.P.M.L. July 14, 2020), ECF No. 692.

5 Cf. In re Hotel Industry Sex Trafficking Litig., 433 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2020)

(“[E]ach action involves different alleged sex trafficking ventures, different hotel brands, different

owners and employees, different geographic locales, different witnesses, different indicia of sex

trafficking, and different time periods. Thus, unique issues concerning each plaintiff’s sex

trafficking allegations predominate in these actions. Indeed, there is no common or predominant

defendant across all actions, further indicating a lack of common questions of fact.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:578 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 19
-3-

there are many such “standardized” forms in circulation, and any form used by a given insurer will

have been modified in a unique way. While the policy language for business income and civil

authority coverages may be very similar among the policies, seemingly minor differences in policy

language could have significant impact on the scope of coverage.6

 

Moreover, the proposed MDL raises significant managerial and efficiency concerns. A

transferee court would have to establish a pretrial structure to manage the hundreds of

plaintiffs—many with disparate views of the litigation—and more than one hundred insurers. The

court also would have to identify common policies with identical or sufficiently similar policy

language and oversee discovery that likely will differ insurer-to-insurer. To say this litigation would

result in a complicated MDL seems an understatement. Managing such a litigation would be an

ambitious undertaking for any jurist, and implementing a pretrial structure that yields efficiencies

will take time. As counsel emphasized during oral argument, however, time is of the essence in this

litigation. Many plaintiffs are on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of business lost due to the

COVID-19 pandemic and the government closure orders. An industry-wide MDL in this instance

will not promote a quick resolution of these matters.

Put simply, the MDL that movants request entails very few common questions of fact, which

are outweighed by the substantial convenience and efficiency challenges posed by managing a

litigation involving the entire insurance industry. The proponents’ arguments that these problems

can be overcome are not persuasive. We therefore deny the motions for centralization. 

The proposals for regional and state-based MDLs raised by some of the responding plaintiffs

suffer from many of the same problems as the industry-wide motions. Although these MDLs would

be smaller, they still would involve multiple defendants with different policies, coverages,

exclusions, and endorsements. Any efficiencies with respect to common discovery and motion

practice would be outweighed by the unique discovery and motion practice as to each insurer. We

likewise deny these regional and state-based MDLs proposals.

In contrast, the arguments for insurer-specific MDLs are more persuasive. Such an MDL

would be limited to a single insurer or group of related insurers and thus would not entail the

managerial problems of an industry-wide MDL involving more than a hundred insurers. The actions

are more likely to involve insurance policies utilizing the same language, endorsements, and

exclusions. Thus, there is a significant possibility that the actions will share common discovery and

6

 The Illinois movants’ citation to the experience of the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct

Authority (FCA) in reviewing property insurance policies is illustrative. The FCA, which operates

under a unitary legal system, reviewed property insurance policies from eight different insurers and

concluded that the policies issued in that one jurisdiction fell within seventeen different policy

categories. See Baker Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A to the Illinois Movants’ Reply Br., MDL No. 2942 (J.P.M.L.

Jun. 15, 2020), ECF No. 544-1. An industry-wide MDL, encompassing more than a hundred

insurers and the laws of the fifty states, would entail far more differences. The example of the

FCA—which is operating using stipulated facts—thus weighs against centralization.

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:579 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 19
-4-

pretrial motion practice. Moreover, centralization of these actions could eliminate inconsistent

pretrial rulings with respect to the overlapping nationwide class claims that most of the insurers face. 

An insurer-specific MDL therefore could achieve the convenience and efficiency benefits envisioned

by Section 1407. 

That said, we will not attempt to create an insurer-specific MDL on the present record. The

proposals for insurer-specific MDLs were made midway through the briefing on the industry-wide

motions, and no motion for an insurer-specific MDL was filed. As a result, only a few insurers, and

few plaintiffs other than the movants, responded to the insurer-specific MDL proposals, which

themselves were often vague as to which actions would be included in a given MDL.7

 The Panel

requires a better understanding of the factual commonalities and differences among these actions,

as well as the efficiencies that may or may not be gained through centralization, before creating an

insurer-specific MDL. 

Instead, we will direct the Clerk of the Panel to issue orders with respect to actions naming

four insurers or groups of related insurers—Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London; Cincinnati

Insurance Company; the Hartford insurers;8

 and Society Insurance—directing the parties to show

cause why those actions should not be centralized. See Panel Rule 8.1. With respect to these four

insurers or insurer groups, centralization may be warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery and

pretrial practice. Cognizant that delay should be avoided in this litigation to the extent possible, the

due date for responses to the show cause orders will be expedited by one week to ensure that the

Panel will be able to consider the matters at its next hearing session on September 24, 2020. 

With respect to the actions in this litigation involving other insurers, centralization does not

appear appropriate. There are alternatives to centralization available to minimize any duplication

in pretrial proceedings, including informal cooperation and coordination of the actions. The parties

also may seek to relate actions against a common insurer in a given district before one judge. Such

alternatives appear practicable as to these insurers, given the limited number of actions and districts

involved as to each.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions for centralization of the actions listed on

Schedule A are denied.

7

 In addition, many of the insurers are not named in any of the actions on the motions, but

only in actions noticed as related to those motions. This potentially presents a procedural obstacle

to any immediate centralization as to those insurers. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c) (requiring notice to

the parties that centralization of the actions is contemplated).

8

 The Hartford insurers include: Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; Hartford Fire

Insurance Company; Hartford Casualty Insurance Company; Hartford Underwriters Insurance

Company; Sentinel Insurance Company Limited; and Twin City Fire Insurance Company. These six

insurers filed a joint response to the motions. See Hartford’s Interested Party Response at 1 & n.1,

MDL No. 2942 (J.P.M.L. Jun. 5, 2020), ECF No. 425.

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:580 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 19
-5-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Panel shall issue a show cause order as

to the actions listed on Schedule B. The show cause order shall be captioned “In re: Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance

Litigation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Panel shall issue a show cause order as

to the actions listed on Schedule C. The show cause order shall be captioned “In re: Cincinnati

Insurance Company COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Panel shall issue a show cause order as

to the actions listed on Schedule D. The show cause order shall be captioned “In re: Hartford

COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Panel shall issue a show cause order as

to the actions listed on Schedule E. The show cause order shall be captioned “In re: Society

Insurance Company COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that responses to the above show cause orders shall be due on

August 26, 2020, and replies on September 2, 2020.

 

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________

 Ellen Segal Huvelle 

 Acting Chair

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry 

Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:581 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 5 of 19
IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 

PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2942

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Alabama

WAGNER SHOES LLC v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

C.A. No. 7:20-00465

Central District of California

CARIBE RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB, INC. v. TOPA INSURANCE 

COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:20-03570

Middle District of Florida

PRIME TIME SPORTS GRILL, INC. v. DTW 1991 UNDERWRITING LIMITED,

C.A. No. 8:20-00771

Southern District of Florida

EL NOVILLO RESTAURANT, ET AL. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT

LLOYD’S LONDON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-21525

Northern District of Illinois

BIG ONION TAVERN GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC.,

C.A. No. 1:20-02005

BILLY GOAT TAVERN I, INC., ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE,

C.A. 1:20-02068

SANDY POINT DENTAL PC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,

ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-02160

Southern District of New York

GIO PIZZERIA & BAR HOSPITALITY, LLC, ET AL. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS

AT LLOYD’S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBERS ARP74910-20 AND ARP-75209-20, C.A. No. 1:20-03107

Northern District of Ohio

BRIDAL EXPRESSIONS LLC v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 1:20-00833

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:582 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 6 of 19
-A2-

Southern District of Ohio

TROY STACY ENTERPRISES INC. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,

C.A. No. 1:20-00312

District of Oregon

DAKOTA VENTURES, LLC, ET AL. v. OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,

C.A. No. 3:20-00630

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

LH DINING LLC v. ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:20-01869

NEWCHOPS RESTAURANT COMCAST LLC v. ADMIRAL INDEMNITY

COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:20-01949

Northern District of Texas

BERKSETH-ROJAS DDS v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

C.A. No. 3:20-00948

Eastern District of Wisconsin

RISING DOUGH, INC., ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 2:20-00623

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:583 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 7 of 19
IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 

PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2942

SCHEDULE B

Middle District of Florida

PRIME TIME SPORTS GRILL, INC. v. DTW 1991 UNDERWRITING LIMITED,

C.A. No. 8:20-00771

Southern District of Florida

RUNWAY 84, INC. & RUNWAY 84 REALTY, LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS 

AT LLOYD’S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO CERTIFICATE NUMBER 

ARP–75203–20, C.A. No. 0:20–61161 

EL NOVILLO RESTAURANT, ET AL. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT

LLOYD’S LONDON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-21525

ATMA BEAUTY, INC. v. HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY SE, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:20–21745 

SUN CUISINE, LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON 

SUBSCRIBING TO CONTRACT NUMBER B0429BA1900350 UNDER 

COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATE ENDORSEMENT 350OR100802, 

C.A. No. 1:20-21827

SA PALM BEACH LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON, 

ET AL., C.A. No. 9:20-80677

Central District of Illinois

RJH MANAGEMENT CORP. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, 

LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY CERTIFICATE NO. TNR 198538, 

C.A. No. 3:20-03143

Eastern District of Louisiana

STATION 6, LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, 

C.A. No. 2:20–01371

District of New Jersey

PALM AND PINE VENTURES, LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S 

LONDON, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–08212

MDH GLOBAL, LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, 

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–08214

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:584 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 8 of 19
-B3-

Southern District of New York

GIO PIZZERIA & BAR HOSPITALITY, LLC, ET AL. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS

AT LLOYD’S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBERS ARP74910-20 AND ARP-75209-20, C.A. No. 1:20-03107

632 METACOM, INC. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON 

SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. XSZ146282, C.A. No. 1:20–03905

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

FIRE ISLAND RETREAT v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON 

SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. B050719MKSFL000081-00, 

C.A. No. 2:20–02312

INDEPENDENCE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYD’S, LONDON, C.A. No. 2:20–02365 

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:585 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 9 of 19
IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 

PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2942

SCHEDULE C

Middle District of Alabama

EAGLE EYE OUTFITTERS, INC. v. THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 1:20–00335

PEAR TREE GROUP, LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 3:20–00382

SNEAK & DAWDLE, LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 3:20–00383

AUBURN DEPOT LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 3:20–00384

Northern District of Alabama

HOMESTATE SEAFOOD LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–00649

SOUTHERN DENTAL BIRMINGHAM LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE

COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:20–00681

Northern District of Illinois

SANDY POINT DENTAL PC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–02160

3 SQUARES, LLC, ET AL. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 1:20–02690

DEREK SCOTT WILLIAMS PLLC, ET AL. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE 

COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:20–02806

District of Kansas

PROMOTIONAL HEADWEAR INT’L v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE 

COMPANY, INC., C.A. No. 2:20–02211

Western District of Missouri

STUDIO 417, INC. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 6:20–03127

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:586 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 10 of 19
-C2-

Southern District of Ohio

TROY STACY ENTERPRISES INC. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 1:20–00312

TASTE OF BELGIUM LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:20–00357

SWEARINGEN SMILES LLC, ET AL. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE 

COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–00517

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

MILKBOY CENTER CITY LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–02036

STONE SOUP, INC. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–02614

Western District of Pennsylvania

HIRSCHFIELD-LOUIK v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:20–00816

Southern District of West Virginia

UNCORK AND CREATE LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–00401

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:587 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 11 of 19
IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 

PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2942

SCHEDULE D

Northern District of Alabama

PURE FITNESS LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–00775

District of Arizona

FORFEX LLC v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:20–01068

JDR ENTERPRISES LLC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 4:20–00270

Central District of California

GERAGOS & GERAGOS ENGINE COMPANY NO. 28, LLC v. HARTFORD FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–04647

PATRICK AND GEOFF INVESTMENTS INC. v. THE HARTFORD, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:20–05140

ROUNDIN3RD SPORTS BAR LLC v. THE HARTFORD, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:20–05159

R3 HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC v. THE HARTFORD, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20–01182

Northern District of California

PROTEGE RESTAURANT PARTNERS LLC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, LIMITED, C.A. No. 5:20–03674

Southern District of California

PIGMENT INC. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:20–00794

District of Connecticut

LITTLE STARS CORPORATION v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–00609

CONSULTING ADVANTAGE INC. v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–00610

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:588 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 12 of 19
-D2-

RENCANA LLC, ET AL. v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–00611

COSMETIC LASER, INC. v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 3:20–00638

DR. JEFFREY MILTON, DDS, INC. v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:20–00640

ONE40 BEAUTY LOUNGE, LLC v. SENTINEL INS. CO., LTD., C.A. No. 3:20–00643

PATS v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–00697

DOTEXAMDR PLLC v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–00698

KENNEDY HODGES & ASSOCIATES LTD., LLP, ET AL. v. HARTFORD 

FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–00852

LEAL, INC. v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:20–00917

SA HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:20–01033

District of District of Columbia

GCDC LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:20–01094

Northern District of Florida

FLORIDA WELLNESS CENTER OF TALLAHASSEE v. HARTFORD CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:20–00279

Southern District of Florida

REINOL A. GONZALEZ, DMD, P.A. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–22151

Northern District of Georgia

KARMEL DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEY–AT–LAW, LLC v. 

THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:20–02181

Southern District of Illinois

TAUBE v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:20–00565

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:589 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 13 of 19
-D3-

Eastern District of Louisiana

Q CLOTHIER NEW ORLEANS, LLC, ET AL. v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–01470

District of Massachusetts

RINNIGADE ART WORKS v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, 

INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–10867

Southern District of Mississippi

THE KIRKLAND GROUP, INC. v. SENTINEL INSURANCE GROUP LTD., 

C.A. No. 3:20–00496

Eastern District of Missouri

ROBERT LEVY, D.M.D., LLC v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:20–00643

District of New Jersey

AMBULATORY CARE CENTER, PA v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LIMITED, C.A. No. 1:20–05837

THE EYE CARE CENTER OF NEW JERSEY, PA v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL 

SERVICES GROUP INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–05743

LD GELATO LLC v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

C.A. No. 2:20–06215

BACK2HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL 

SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–06717

MARRAS 46 LLC v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–08886

ADDIEGO FAMILY DENTAL, LLC v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–05847

ADDIEGO ORTHODONTICS, LLC v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, 

INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–05882

SWEETBERRY HOLDINGS LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–08200

BLUSHARK DIGITAL, LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, 

INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–08210

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:590 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 14 of 19
-D4-

Eastern District of New York

METROPOLITAN DENTAL ARTS P.C. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL 

SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–02443

BRAIN FREEZE BEVERAGE, LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–02157

Southern District of New York

SHARDE HARVEY DDS PLLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–03350

FOOD FOR THOUGHT CATERERS, CORP. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL 

SERVICES GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–03418

RED APPLE DENTAL PC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, 

INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:20–03549

Western District of New York

BUFFALO XEROGRAPHIX INC. v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LIMITED, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–00520

SALVATORE’S ITALIAN GARDENS, INC., ET AL. v. HARTFORD FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:20–00659

Northern District of Ohio

SYSTEM OPTICS, INC. v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 5:20–01072

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

LANSDALE 329 PROP, LLC, ET AL. v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–02034

SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN PC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LIMITED, C.A. No. 2:20–02083

HAIR STUDIO 1208, LLC v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., 

C.A. No. 2:20–02171

ULTIMATE HEARING SOLUTIONS II, LLC, ET AL. v. HARTFORD 

UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–02401

ATCM OPTICAL, INC., ET AL. v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–02828

MOODY, ET AL. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–02856

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:591 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 15 of 19
-D5-

SEYMON BOKMAN v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, 

C.A. No. 2:20–02887

District of South Carolina

COFFEY & MCKENZIE LLC v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–01671

BLACK MAGIC LLC v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20–01743

FANCY THAT! BISTRO & CATERING LLC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY 

LIMITED, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20–02382

Eastern District of Texas

RISINGER HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL. v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–00176

BOOZER-LINDSEY, PA, LLC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 

C.A. No. 6:20–00235

Northern District of Texas

GRAILEYS INC. v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,C.A. No. 3:20–01181

Western District of Texas

INDEPENDENCE BARBERSHOP, LLC v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE CO., 

C.A. No. 1:20–00555

District of Utah

WILLIAM W. SIMPSON ENTERPRISES v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL 

SERVICES GROUP, C.A. No. 4:20–00075

Eastern District of Virginia

ADORN BARBER & BEAUTY LLC v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 3:20–00418

Western District of Washington

CHORAK v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–00627

KIM v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, C.A. No. 2:20–00657

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:592 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 16 of 19
-D6-

GLOW MEDISPA LLC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 

C.A. No. 2:20–00712

STRELOW v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 2:20–00797

PRATO v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, C.A. No. 3:20–05402

LEE v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, C.A. No. 3:20–05422

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:593 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 17 of 19
IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 

PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2942

SCHEDULE E

Northern District of Illinois

BIG ONION TAVERN GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC.,

C.A. No. 1:20-02005

BILLY GOAT TAVERN I, INC., ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE,

C.A. 1:20-02068

BISCUIT CAFE INC., ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC., C.A. No. 1:20–02514

DUNLAYS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, 

C.A. No. 1:20–02524

JDS 1455, INC. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–02546

351 KINGSBURY CORNER, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–02589

ROSCOE SAME LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–02641

KEDZIE BOULEVARD CAFE INC. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE INC., 

C.A. No. 1:20–02692

VALLEY LODGE CORP. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–02813

THE BARN INVESTMENT LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, 

C.A. No. 1:20–03142

PURPLE PIG CHEESE BAR & PORK STORE, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, 

C.A. No. 1:20–03164

CIAO BABY ON MAIN LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE INC., C.A. No. 1:20–03251

CARDELLI ENTERPRISE, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–03263

726 WEST GRAND LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–03432

DEERFIELD ITALIAN KITCHEN, INC. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC., 

C.A. No. 1:20–03896

THE WHISTLER LLC, ET AL. v. SOCIETY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

C.A. No. 1:20–03959

RIVERSIDE ENTERPRISES, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 1:20–04178

District of Minnesota

LUCY’S BURGERS, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC., C.A. No. 0:20–01029

Middle District of Tennessee

PEG LEG PORKER RESTAURANT, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, 

C.A. No. 3:20–00337

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:594 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 18 of 19
-E2-

Eastern District of Wisconsin

RISING DOUGH, INC., ET AL. v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 2:20-00623

AMBROSIA INDY LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, C.A. No. 2:20–00771

Case: 1:20-cv-02692 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:595 Case MDL No. 2942 Document 772 Filed 08/12/20 Page 19 of 19