IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

THE RIVERWALK SEAFOOD GRILL INC, ) 

D/B/A RIVERSIDE BANQUETS, individually ) 

And on behalf of all other similarly situated ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) Case No. 

 v. ) 

) Jury Trial 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY OF AMERICA ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES, THE RIVERWALK SEAFOOD GRILL INC., doing business under the assumed 

name RIVERSIDE BANQUETS (“Plaintiff” or “Riverside”) individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated brings this CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against TRAVLERS 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (“Travelers”) and states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff individually, and behalf of all other similarly situated are the are owner

and operator of business in Kane County Illinois, ho have been forced, by recent orders issued by 

the State of Illinois, to cease their operations—through no fault of their own—as part of the State’s 

efforts to slow the spread of the COVID-19 global pandemic. The closures mandated by these 

orders present an existential threat to these small, local businesses throughout the country. 

2. To protect their businesses from situations like these, which threaten their

livelihoods based on factors wholly outside of their control, Plaintiffs obtained business 

20-3768 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
interruption insurance from Traveler’s In blatant breach of its insurance obligations that it 

voluntarily undertook in exchange for Plaintiffs’ premium payments, Traveler’s has denied 

Plaintiffs’ claims arising from the State-ordered interruption of their business. 

3. As a result, Plaintiffs now bring this action against Traveler’s for its failure to honor 

its obligations under commercial business owners insurance policies issued to Plaintiffs, which 

provide coverage for losses incurred due to a “necessary suspension” of their operations, including 

when their businesses are forced to close due to a government order.(“Civil Authority Coverage”) 

4. On March 15, 2020, during the term of the policies issued by Traveler’s to 

Plaintiffs, Illinois Governor Pritzker issued an order first closing all restaurants, bars, and movie 

theaters to the public in an effort to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A few days later, 

on March 20, 2020, Governor Pritzker ordered all “non-essential businesses” to close. The March 

15 and March 20 orders are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Closure Orders.” 

5. As a result of the Closure Orders, the Plaintiffs have been forced to halt ordinary 

operations, resulting in substantial lost revenues. 

6. But despite Traveler’s express promise in its policies to cover the Plaintiffs’ 

business interruption losses when the government forces them to close, Traveler’s has issued 

blanket denials to Plaintiffs for any losses related to the Closure Orders. 

7. Traveler’s continually asserts that Plaintiffs’ losses are not covered, based on the 

assertion that the “actual or alleged presence of the coronavirus,” which led to the Closure Orders 

that prohibited Plaintiffs from operating their businesses, does not constitute “direct physical loss.” 

See “Exhibit A.” 

8. But Traveler’s conclusory statement that the actual or alleged presence of a 

substance like COVID-19 does not result in property damage is contrary to the law in Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
Illinois courts have consistently held that the presence of a dangerous substance in a property 

constitutes “physical loss or damage.” See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 211 v. 

Int’l Ins. Co., 720 N.E.2d 622, 625–26 (Ill. Ct. App. 1999), as modified on denial of reh’g (Dec. 

3, 1999). 

9. Thus, Traveler’s wholesale, cursory coverage denials are arbitrary and 

unreasonable, and inconsistent with the facts and plain language of the policies it issued. These 

denials appear to be driven by Traveler’s desire to preempt its own financial exposure to the 

economic fallout resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, rather than to initiate, as Traveler’s is 

obligated to do, a full and fair investigation of the claims and a careful review of the policies they 

sold to Plaintiffs in exchange for valuable premiums. 

I. THE PARTIES 

Plaintiff 

10. Plaintiff The Riverwalk Seafood Grille, Inc. is a corporation organized under the 

laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Kane County, Illinois. Plaintiff is doing 

business under the Assumed Name Riverside Banquets and is an Additional Insured under the 

Policy. See “Exhibit B”. Plaintiff hosts weddings, corporate events, and other special events 

serving food and beverages. 

Defendant 

11. Defendant Traveler’s is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State 

of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford Connecticut Illinois. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

Defendant and at least one member of the Class are citizens of different states and because: (a) the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
Class consists of at least 100 members; (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 

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

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Traveler’s pursuant to the Illinois “long 

arm statute,” 735 ILCS 5/2-209, because Traveler’s has submitted to jurisdiction in this state by: 

(a) transacting business in Illinois; (b) contracting to insure a person, property or risk located within 

Illinois at the time of contracting; and (c) making a contract substantially connected with Illinois. 

See 735 ILCS 5/2-209(1), (4), (7). 

14. In addition, Traveler’s exercises substantial, systematic and continuous contacts 

with Illinois by doing business in Illinois, serving insureds in Illinois, and seeking additional 

business in Illinois. 

15. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 

because an actual controversy exists between the parties as to their respective rights and 

obligations under the Policy with respect to the loss of business arising from the civil authority 

events detailed below. 

16. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a 

substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred within the 

Northern District of Illinois. 

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

17. Traveler’s issued Policy #YO630-0K557677 for the Policy Period of 1/1/20 to 

1/1/21 to the Shodeen Group LLC and numerous Additional Insureds including Plaintiff. See 

Exhibit A 

18. The Policy Provided the following coverages: 

DELUXE BUSINESS INCOME (AND EXTRA EXPSPENSE) COVERAGE FORM 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
A. COVERAGE 

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"; and 

 The actual Extra Expense you incur during the "period of restoration"; caused by 

direct physical loss of or damage to property at premises which are described in the 

Declarations and for which a Business Income and Extra Expense Limit of Insurance 

is shown in the Declarations. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from 

a Covered Cause of Loss. 

*** 

See Deluxe Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form (DX T1 01 11 12) at page 1 

(emphasis added). 

* * * * * 

4. Additional Coverages 

c. 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 the actual Extra Expense you incur caused by action of civil authority 

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

apply: 

 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 100 miles from the damaged property; and 

 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. 

*** 

See Deluxe Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form (DX T1 01 11 12) at pages 2-3 

(emphasis added). 

* * * * * 

5. Coverage Extensions 

b. Ingress or Egress 

(1) You may extend the insurance provided by this Coverage Form for: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
(a) The actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary 

"suspension" of your "operations" during the "period of restoration"; and 

(b) The actual Extra Expense you incur during the "period of restoration"; to apply 

to the actual amount of such loss of Business Income and Extra Expense that 

you incur when ingress to or egress from the described premises is prevented

(other than as provided in the Civil Authority Additional Coverage). 

(2) The prevention of ingress to or egress from the described premises must be caused by 

direct physical loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to property that is away 

from, but within 1 mile of the described premises, unless a different number of miles 

is shown in the Declarations. . . . 

See Deluxe Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form (DX T1 01 11 12) at pages 5-6 

Closure Orders Throughout the United States and World 

19. Closure Orders were also issued by local, state, provincial or national jurisdictions 

of Class Members throughout the United States. A non-comprehensive list, for illustration, 

includes the following states and countries where Class Members have Covered Properties: 

 California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania and Virginia; and 

20. A major news outlet reported that, as of April 3, 2020, over 3.9 billion people had 

been asked or ordered to stay at home, from over 90 countries or territories.1

The Impact of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders 

21. The presence of COVID-19 caused direct physical loss or damage to Plaintiff’s and 

the other Class Members’ property, by impairing and damaging the property, and by causing a 

“suspension” of business operations during the “period of restoration”. 

22. The Closure Orders resulted from Covered Cause of Loss and caused losses by 

impairing access to and business functions of Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ Property. 

1

 Alasdair Sandford, Coronavirus: Half of humanity now on lockdown as 90 countries call for confinement, 

EuroNews (April 3, 2020), https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus‐in‐europe‐spain‐s‐death‐ toll‐hits‐

10‐000‐after‐record‐950‐new‐deaths‐in‐24‐hou. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
23. Upon information and belief, Class Members have had confirmed cases of COVID19 at their properties and have had to take action to secure and preserve such properties. As of the 

filing of this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff estimates that Class Members have suffered several 

hundreds of millions of dollars of Business Interruption losses alone. These losses are ongoing and 

could increase substantially depending on the length and ultimate severity of the pandemic and the 

government response in countries around the world. 

24. Traveler’s repudiation of coverage is wrongful. Any alleged requirement of direct 

physical loss of or damage to property” is satisfied by the impairment of the business function of 

Plaintiffs’ and other Class Members’ properties. Likewise, Traveler’s cannot meet its burden to 

show that any exclusions apply to the Plaintiffs’ Losses Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and the 

Closure Orders. 

25. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the emerging 

threat from the novel coronavirus—otherwise known as COVID-19—constituted a global 

pandemic. 

26. Emerging research on the virus and recent reports from the CDC indicate that the 

COVID-19 strains physically infect and can stay alive on surfaces for at least 17 days, a 

characteristic that renders property exposed to the contagion potentially unsafe and dangerous. 

Other research indicates that the virus may linger on surfaces for up to four weeks in low 

temperatures. 

27. In response to the pandemic, and the spread of the coronavirus in Chicago and 

throughout Illinois, Illinois Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-07 on March 15, 2020 

requiring that all bars, restaurants, and movie theaters close to the public beginning on March 16, 

2020 and continuing through March 30, 2020. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
28. The continuous presence of the coronavirus on or around Plaintiffs’ premises has 

rendered the premises unsafe and unfit for their intended use and therefore caused physical 

property damage or loss under the Policies. 

29. Executive Order 2020-07 was issued in direct response to these dangerous physical 

conditions, and prohibited the public from accessing Plaintiffs’ restaurants, thereby causing the 

necessary suspension of their operations and triggering the Civil Authority coverage under the 

Policies. Executive Order 2020-07 specifically states, “the Illinois Department of Public Health 

recommends Illinois residents avoid group dining in public settings, such as in bars and restaurants, 

which usually involves prolonged close social contact contrary to recommended practice for social 

distancing,” and that “frequently used surfaces in public settings, including bars and restaurants, 

if not cleaned and disinfected frequently and properly, also pose a risk of exposure.” 

30. Governor Pritzker’s March 20, 2020 Closure Order (Executive Order 2020-10) 

closing all “non-essential” businesses in Illinois, including all restaurants and movie theaters, 

likewise was made in direct response to the continued and increasing presence of the coronavirus 

on property or around Plaintiffs’ premises. 

31. Like the March 15, 2020 Closure Order, the March 20, 2020 Order prohibited the 

public from accessing Plaintiffs’ restaurants, thereby causing the necessary suspension of their 

operations and triggering the Civil Authority coverage under the Policies. 

32. As a result of the Closure Orders, the Plaintiffs have each suffered substantial 

Business Income losses and incurred Extra Expense. The covered losses incurred by Plaintiffs and 

owed under the Policies is increasing every day, but are expected to exceed $10 million dollars. 

As a result of these catastrophic losses, many of the Plaintiffs have been forced to furlough their 

workers and may have to close some or all of their locations permanently. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
33. Following the March 15, 2020 Closure Order, the Plaintiffs each submitted a claim 

to Traveler’s requesting coverage for their business interruption losses promised under the Policies 

(collectively, the “Closure Order Claims”). 

34. Traveler’s has denied each of the Closure Order Claims, either verbally or in 

writing. See “Exhibit A.” 

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

35. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 

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

situated. 

36. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class defined as all persons and entities in the United 

States with claims for Property Damage coverage and/or Deluxe Business Income (and Extra 

Expense Coverage), including persons and entities that: 

(a) incurred reasonable and necessary costs to temporarily protect 

or preserve insured property erty due to actual or immediately 

imminent insured direct physical loss or damage due to COVID19; or 

(b) suffered a suspension of business related to COVID-19, at 

premises covered by the Policy; or 

(c) incurred Extra Expense that they would not have incurred if 

there had been no direct physical loss or damage to the insured 

property, or to temporarily continue as nearly normal as 

practicable the conduct of their business; or 

(d) sustained losses caused by action of a civil authority due to the 

Closure Orders; or 

(e) sustained losses caused by impaired ingress or egress due to 

COVID-19 or the Closure Orders; or 

37. Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any of its members, affiliates, parents, 

subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, or assigns; governmental entities; and the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
Court staff assigned to this case and their immediate family members. Plaintiff reserves the right 

to modify or amend the Class definition, as appropriate, during the course of this litigation. 

38. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained on behalf of the Class 

proposed herein under the criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

39. Numerosity—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the 

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

Plaintiff is informed and believes that there are thousands of members of the Class, the precise 

number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff but may be ascertained from Defendant’s books 

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

postings, and/or published notice. 

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

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

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

(a) Traveler’s issued the all-risk Policy in exchange for payment of 

premiums by Plaintiff and the Class; 

(b) whether the Class suffered a covered loss based on the Policy; 

(c) whether Traveler’s wrongfully repudiated all claims based on 

COVID-19 and the Closure Orders; 

(d) whether Traveler’s Property Damage – Deluxe Business Income 

(and Extra Expense) coverage applies to business losses caused 

by COVID-19; 

(e) whether Traveler’s Business Interruption coverage applies to a 

suspension of business caused by the Closure Orders; 

(f) whether Traveler Extra Expense coverage applies to business 

losses caused by COVID-19 and the Closure Orders; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
(g) whether Traveler’s Civil Authority coverage applies to a 

suspension of business due to the Closure Orders; 

(h) whether Traveler’s Ingress/Egress coverage applies to business 

losses from impaired access due to COVID-19; 

(i) whether Traveler’s has breached its contract of insurance 

through a blanket repudiation of all claims based on business 

interruption, business losses, costs or closures related to 

COVID-19 and the Closure Orders; and 

(j) whether Plaintiff and the other Class Members are entitled to an 

award of reasonable attorney fees, interest and costs. 

41. Typicality—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are 

typical of the other Class Members’ claims because Plaintiff and the other Class Members are all 

similarly affected by Defendant’s refusal to pay under its Deluxe Business Income (and Extra 

Expense) Coverage Form, Civil Authority Coverage, and Ingress/Egress Coverage.. Plaintiff’s 

claims are based upon the same legal theories as those of the other Class Members. Plaintiff and 

the other Class Members sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of the same wrongful 

practices in which Defendant engaged. 

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

Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the 

interests of the other Class Members whom they seek to represent, Plaintiff has retained counsel 

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

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

pay the amounts owed under their policies, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. 

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

their counsel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
43. Inconsistent or Varying Adjudications and the Risk of Impediments to Other 

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

(and Extra Expense) Coverage, Civil Authority Coverage, and Ingress/Egress Coverage. The 

prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create an immediate risk of 

inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

the Defendant. Moreover, the adjudications sought by Plaintiff could, as a practical matter, 

substantially impair or impede the ability of other Class Members, who are not parties to this 

action, to protect their interests. 

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

Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the other Class 

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

below, with respect to the Class Members. 

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

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

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

Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and 

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

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

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

COUNT I 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the facts set forth in 

paragraphs 1–45 above. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
47. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Class. 

48. Each Policy is an insurance contract under which Traveler’s was paid premiums in 

exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiff’s losses for claims covered by the Policy, such as business 

losses incurred as a result of the government orders forcing them to close their businesses. 

49. Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies, including 

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

50. Traveler’s has arbitrarily and without justification refused to reimburse Plaintiffs 

for any losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the covered business losses related to the 

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

pandemic. 

51. An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Traveler’s 

obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiffs for the full amount of losses incurred by 

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

stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

52. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from this Court 

declaring the following: 

(a) Plaintiffs’ losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the and the 

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

are insured losses under the Policies; 

(b) Traveler’s has waived any right it may have had to assert defenses to coverage or 

otherwise seek to bar or limit coverage for Plaintiffs’ losses by issuing blanket 

coverage denials without conducting a claim investigation as required under Illinois 

law; and 

(c) Traveler’s is obligated to pay Plaintiffs for the full amount of the losses incurred 

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

Closure Orders during the four-week indemnity period and the necessary 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
COUNT II: 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the facts set forth in 

paragraphs 1–45 above. 

54. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Class. 

55. Each Policy is an insurance contract under which Traveler’s was paid premiums in 

exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for claims covered by the Policy, such as business 

losses incurred as a result of the government orders forcing them to close their businesses. 

56. Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies, including 

payment of the premiums in exchange for coverage under the Policies, and yet Traveler’s has 

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

terms. 

57. In the Policy, Traveler’s agreed to pay for its Insureds “actual loss of Business 

Income due to the ‘necessary’ suspension of your ‘operations’ during the ‘period of restoration’”. 

58. A recoverable Business Income loss is “Net Income (Net Profit or Loss before 

income taxes) that would have been earned or incurred, plus continuing normal operating expenses 

incurred including payroll. 

59. The Closure Orders and/or COVID-19 caused direct physical loss and damage to 

the property of Class Members, requiring suspension of operations at their property. The Losses 

thus triggered the Business Income loss provision of the Policy. 

60. By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection 

with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Traveler’s has breached its coverage 

obligations under the Policies. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
61. As a result of Traveler’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiffs have sustained 

substantial damages for which Traveler’s is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT III: 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 

62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein. 

63. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Class. 

64. The Policy is a contract under which Plaintiff paid Traveler’s premiums on behalf 

of the Class, in exchange for Traveler’s promise to pay their losses for claims covered by the 

Policy. 

65. In the Policy, Traveler’s agreed to pay reasonable and necessary Extra Expense that 

its Insureds incur during the “period of restoration” that they would not have incurred if there had 

been no direct physical loss or damage to the property from a Covered Cause of Loss. 

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

business and to continue operations ...” 

67. Due to COVID-19 and the Closure Orders, Class Members incurred Extra Expense 

at their Property. 

68. Class Members have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and/or 

those provisions have been waived by Traveler’s or Traveler’s is estopped from asserting them, 

and yet Traveler’s has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the Policy’s clear 

and unambiguous terms. 

69. By repudiating coverage for any business losses incurred by the Class in connection 

with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Traveler’s has breached its coverage 

obligations under the Policy. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
70. As a result of Traveler’s breach of the Policy, the Class has sustained substantial 

damages for which Traveler’s is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT IV: 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 

71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein. 

72. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Class. 

73. The Policy is a contract under which Plaintiff paid Traveler’s premiums on behalf 

of the Class, in exchange for Traveler’s promise to pay their losses for claims covered by the 

Policy. 

74. In the Policy, Traveler’s agreed to pay for losses by its Insureds for losses sustained 

by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the property. 

75. The Closure Orders triggered the Civil Authority provision of the Policy. 

76. Class Members have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy, and/or 

those provisions have been waived by Traveler’s, or Traveler’s is estopped from asserting them, 

and yet Traveler’s has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the Policy’s clear 

and unambiguous terms. 

77. By repudiating coverage for any business losses incurred by the Class in connection 

with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Traveler’s has breached its coverage 

obligations under the Policy. 

78. As a result of Traveler’s breach of the Policy, the Class has sustained substantial 

damages for which Traveler’s is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 

COUNT V: 

BREACH OF CONTRACT – INGRESS/EGRESS COVERAGE 

79. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
80. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Class. 

81. The Policy is a contract under which Plaintiff paid Traveler’s premiums on behalf 

of the Class, in exchange for Traveler’s promise to pay their losses for claims covered by the 

Policy. 

82. In the Policy, Traveler’s agreed to pay for Ingress/Egress losses due to impairment 

of ingress to or egress to the described premises. 

83. The Ingress/Egress coverage applies whether or not the Covered Property is 

damaged, “provided that such impairment is caused by direct physical loss or damage by a Covered 

Cause of Loss to property that is within a mile of the described premises.” 

84. The Closure Orders triggered the Ingress/Egress provision of the Policy. 

85. Class Members have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy, and/or 

those provisions have been waived by Traveler’s, or Traveler’s is estopped from asserting them, 

and yet Traveler’s has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the Policy’s clear 

and unambiguous terms. 

V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all Class Members, respectfully 

requests that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows: 

(a) Entering an order certifying the proposed Class, as requested herein, designating 

Plaintiff as Class representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s undersigned attorneys as 

Counsel for the Class; 

(b) Entering judgment on Counts II-V in favor of the Class and awarding damages for 

breach of contract in an amount to be determined at trial; 

(c) Entering declaratory judgment on Counts I in favor of the Class, as follows; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
i. Class Members’ Property Damage, Deluxe Business Income (and Extra 

Expense) Property losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are 

insured losses under the Policy; 

ii. Class Members Business Income and Extra Expense losses, and their Civil 

Authority, and Ingress/Egress, losses incurred in connection with the 

Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming 

from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the Policy, as are the 

expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by the Class to reduce their 

suspension of business 

iii. Traveler’s is obligated to pay for the foregoing losses incurred and to be 

incurred by the Class related to COVID-19, the Closure Orders and the 

necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 

pandemic, and to pay the Class the expenses reasonably incurred by them to 

reduce their suspension of business; 

(d) Ordering Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts 

awarded; 

(e) Ordering Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

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

VI. JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable. 

Dated: June 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL, LLC 

/s/Robert M. Foote, Esq. 

Robert M. Foote, Esq. (#03124325) 

Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. (#06255735) 

Matthew J. Herman, Esq. (#06237297) 

FOOTE, MEILKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL, LLC 

10 West State Street 

Suite 200 

Geneva, IL 60134 

Telephone: (630) 232-7450 

rmf@fmcolaw.com

kcc@fmcolaw.com

mjh@fmcolaw.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-03768 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18