14. Plaintiffs and Class members faithfully paid policy premiums to Defendants, 4 specifically to provide, among other things, additional coverages in the event of business 5 interruption or closures by order of Civil Authority and for business loss for property damage. 6  15. The terms of the Policy explicitly provide the insured with insurance coverage for 7 actual loss of business income sustained, along with any actual, necessary and reasonable extra 8 expenses incurred, when access to the Insured’s properties is specifically prohibited by Civil 9 Authority Orders. This additional coverage is identified as coverage under “Civil Authority.” 10  16. The Policy is an all-risk policy, insofar as it provides that covered causes of loss under the policy provides coverage for all covered losses, including but not limited to direct 12 physical loss and/or direct physical damage, unless a loss is specifically excluded or limited in the 13 Policy. 14  17. The Policy also provides coverage for damages resulting from business interruption 15 when there is property damage. 16  18. Based upon information and belief, the Policy provided by Defendants included 17 language that is essentially standardized language adopted from and/or developed by ISO 18 (“Insurance Service Office”). The ISO, founded in 1971, provides a broad range of services to the 19 property and casualty insurance industry. In addition to form policies, ISO collects and manages 20 databases containing large amounts of statistical, actuarial, underwriting, and claims information, 21 fraud-identification tools, and other technical services. ISO describes itself as follows: “ISO 22 provides advisory services and information to many insurance companies. . . ISO develops and 23 publishes policy language that many insurance companies use as the basis for their products.” 24 ~so General Questions, Verisk, https://www.verisk.com/insurance/about/fag/ (last visited June 5, 25 2020); see also Insurance Services Office (ISO), Verisk, 26 https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/ (las visited June 5, 2020). 27  19. The language in the Policy is language that is “adhesionary” in that Plaintiffs were 28 not participants in negotiating or drafting its content and provisions. Birka-White Law Offices 178 E. Prospect Avenue Danville, CA 94526 (925)362-9999 - - Case No. 3:20-cv-4571 2  2 ~• INSURANCE COVERAGE 3  21 DECLARATORY RELIEF 22  68. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on 3 behalf of the following Class: 4 All Restaurants that have suffered business interruption and lost income as a result of Civil Authority Orders issued in response to 5 the COVID-.19 pandemic. 6  69. Upon information and belief~ Defendants do not cover business interruption services 7 for all restaurants in contravention to the uniform language contained in the insurance policies it 8 has issued to restaurants. 9  70. Ihe exact number of the Class members is unknown as such information is in 10 exclusive control of Defendants. However, due to the nature and commerce involved, Plaintiffs 11 believe the Class consists ofhundreds ofinsureds nationwide, making joinder ofthe Class members 12 impractical. 13  71. Common questions of law and fact affect the right of each Class member. Plaintiffs 14 are seeking Declaratory Relief for all Class members who run restaurants with similar polices to 15 Plaintiffs. Declaratory relief will permit adjudication of the rights of all parties as to whether 16 Defendants’ policies provide coverage for business interruptions losses the Class has suffered as a 17 result of Civil Authority Orders. 18  72. Common questions of law and fact that affect the Class members include, but are 19 not limited to: 20 a. Whether Defendants are legally obligated to pay for business interruption as 21 a result of Civil Authority Orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; 22 b. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered “property damages” in 23 accordance with the terms and conditions of Defendants’ business interruption insurance policies; 24 c. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are excluded from coverage for losses 25 they suffered due to the Civil Authority Orders as a result of the Virus or 26 Bacterial exclusions contained in Defendants’ insurance policies; 27 d. Whether Defendants are justified in denying Plaintiffs and Class members’ claims. 28 Bfrka-White Law Offices 178 E Prospect Avenue Danville CA 94526 ‘~fl (925)362-9999 - - Case No. 3:20-cv-4571 77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference into this cause of action each and 23 every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this Complaint. 24  78. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), provides that in “a case of 25 actual controversy within its jurisdiction. . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the 26 rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not 27 further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 220 1(a). 28 /1/ Birka-White Law Offices 178 E. Prospect Avenue Danville, CA 94526 ‘~ (~ (925)362-9999 - “-‘ - Case No. 3:20-cv-4571