10.  The Policy covers for damages resulting from business interruption when there is  property damage, which is standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance policies, along  with coverage for extra expenses.   11.  The Policy also covers the actual loss of business income sustained and the actual,  necessary, and reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to the Insured Property is  specifically prohibited by order of civil authority as the direct result of a covered cause of loss to  property in the immediate area of Plaintiff’s Insured Property. This additional coverage is  identified as coverage under “Civil Authority.”   12.  The Policy also covers the actual loss of business income sustained and the actual,  necessary, and reasonable extra expenses incurred caused by direct physical loss or damage to a  Dependent Property, such as the property of one of Plaintiff’s clients.   13.  The Policy is an all-risk policy, insofar as it provides that a covered cause of loss,  including but not limited to direct physical loss or direct physical damage, triggers unless the loss  is specifically excluded or limited in the Policy.   14.  An all-risk Policy such as that purchased by Plaintiff is one that protects against  catastrophic events, such as the one occurring now, involving the global COVID-19 Pandemic that  has resulted in the widespread, omnipresent, and persistent presence of COVID-19 throughout the  United States, including Plaintiff’s Dependent Properties.   15.  Coverage under an all-risk policy is to be broadly interpreted and provided, and  exclusions are to be narrowly construed in favor of coverage.   17.  The language in the Policy is “adhesionary” in that Plaintiff was not a participant  in negotiating or drafting its content and provisions.   18.  Plaintiff was not a participant in negotiating or drafting the Policy’s content and  provisions. Plaintiff possessed no leverage or bargaining power to alter or negotiate the terms of  the Policy, and more particularly, Plaintiff had no ability to alter, change or modify standardized  language derived from the ISO format.   19.  The presence of virus or disease can constitute physical damage to property, as the  insurance industry has recognized since at least 2006. When preparing the Virus Exclusion, the  ISO circulated a statement to state insurance regulators that included the following:  Disease-causing agents may render a product impure (change its  quality or substance),or enable the spread of disease by their  presence on interior building surfaces or the surfaces of personal  property. When disease-causing viral or bacterial contamination  occurs, potential claims involve the cost of replacement of property  (for example, the milk), cost of decontamination (for example,  interior building surfaces), and business interruption (time element)  losses. Although building and personal property could arguably  become contaminated (often temporarily) by such viruses and  bacteria, the nature of the property itself would have a bearing on  whether there is actual property damage. An allegation of property  damage may be a point of disagreement in a particular case.   20.  Plaintiff purchased the Policy with an expectation that it was purchasing a policy  that would provide coverage in the event of a business interruption, such as that suffered by  Plaintiff as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic.   22.  The reasonable expectations of Plaintiff—i.e., an objectively reasonable  interpretation by the average Policyholder of the coverage that was being provided—was that the  Policy included coverage when a civil authority forced closure of the business’ Dependent  Properties for an issue of public safety such as that involving the COVID-19 pandemic.   23.  The purported exclusions of the Policy that Defendant has or is expected to raise in  defense of Plaintiff’s claim under the Civil Authority coverage of the Policy are contradictory to  the provision of Civil Authority coverage and violate public policy as a contract of adhesion and  hence are not enforceable against Plaintiff.   24.  Plaintiff is not seeking coverage because of personal injuries caused by the virus,  but rather coverage for property damage, business income loss, and extra expense.   25.  The civil authority orders prohibited access to Plaintiff’s Dependent Properties in  response to dangerous physical conditions described above resulting from COVID-19. As a result  of the presence of COVID-19 and the civil authority orders, Plaintiff suffered business income loss  and incurred extra expenses.   26.  The Policy does not exclude the losses suffered by Plaintiff, and therefore, the  Policy does provide coverage for the losses incurred by Plaintiff.   27.  Based on information and belief, Defendant has accepted the policy premiums with  no intention of providing any coverage for property damage, business income loss or extra  expense, or Civil Authority orders.   29.  The scientific community, and those personally affected by the virus, recognize the  Coronavirus as a cause of real physical loss and damage. It is clear that contamination of a  Dependent Property would be a direct physical loss requiring remediation to clean the surfaces of  the business.   30.  The virus that causes COVID-19 remains stable and transmittable 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. See https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new- coronavirus-stable-hours-surfaces (last visited April 9, 2020).   31.  The CDC has issued a guidance that gatherings of more than 10 people must not  occur. People in congregate environments, which are places where people live, eat, and sleep in  close proximity, face increased danger of contracting COVID-19.   32.  On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (“WHO”) made the assessment  that  6.  At all relevant times, Defendant issued a policy to Plaintiff to cover business  interruption loss from February 1, 2020 until February 1, 2021 for its business at the Insured  Property. The policy number is B 6024700178. This policy was intended to cover losses to  business interruption. See Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the “Policy”).   69.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on  behalf of the following Class:  All insureds of Defendant who have suffered business interruption  and lost income as a result of Civil Authority Orders issued in  response to the COVID-19 pandemic.   7.  The Policy is currently in full effect in providing, among other things, personal  property, business income loss and extra expense, civil authority, and other coverage.   71.  The exact number of the Class members is unknown as such information is in  exclusive control of Defendant. However, due to the nature and commerce involved, Plaintiff  believes the Class consists of hundreds of insureds nationwide, making joinder of the Class  members impractical.   72.  Common questions of law and fact affect the right of each Class member. Plaintiff  is seeking Declaratory Relief for all Class members who run businesses with similar polices to  Plaintiff’s. Declaratory relief will permit adjudication of the rights of all parties as to whether  Defendant’s policies provide coverage for business interruptions losses the Class has suffered as a  result of Civil Authority Orders.   73.  Common questions of law and fact that affect the Class members include, but are  not limited to:  a. Whether Defendant was legally obligated to pay for business interruption as a  result of Civil Authority Orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic;  b. Whether Plaintiff and Class members have suffered direct physical loss or  damage in accordance with the terms and conditions of Defendant’s business  interruption insurance policies;  c. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are excluded from coverage for losses  they suffered due to the Civil Authority Orders as a result of the Virus  Exclusion; and  d. Whether Defendant is justified in denying Plaintiff and Class members’ claims.   74.  The claims and defenses of Plaintiff, as representative plaintiff, are typical of the  claims and defenses of the Class because Defendant wrongfully denied that its policies cover  claims of Plaintiff and the Class members.   76.  A class action provides a fair and efficient method for adjudication of the  controversy.  a. Prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a  risk of inconsistent and varying results against Defendant when confronted with  incompatible standards of conduct; and  b. Adjudications with respect to individual Class members could, as a practical  matter, be dispositive of any interest of other members not parties to such  adjudications and substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.   77.  Defendant has taken steps to discourage the Class from submitting claims under  their policies. For this reason, Declaratory relief for the entire class is appropriate and necessary.  78.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference into this cause of action each and  every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this Complaint.   79.  The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), provides that in “a case of  actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the  rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not  further relief is or could be sought.”   8.  Plaintiff submitted a claim for a loss pursuant to its Policy seeking coverage under  this Policy. Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s claim for coverage for business income loss and extra  expense, civil authority, and other claims, contending, inter alia, that there was no physical loss  or damage to Plaintiff’s Insured Property or surrounding property.   81.  Resolution of the duties, responsibilities and obligations of the parties is necessary  as no adequate remedy at law exists, and a declaration of the Court is needed to resolve the dispute  and controversy.   82.  Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff’s Dependent Properties have  experienced direct physical loss or damage.   83.  Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the Orders constitute a prohibition of  access to Plaintiff’s Dependent Properties.   84.  Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the prohibition of access by the Orders  has specifically prohibited access as defined in the Policy.   85.  Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff had no choice but to comply  with the civil authority Orders and suspend operations at the business.   86.  Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the Orders trigger coverage.   88.  Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the Policy provides business income  coverage in the event that the coronavirus has caused a loss or damage at a Dependent Property.   89.  Plaintiff does not seek any determination of whether the coronavirus is physically  in or at the Insured Property, an amount of damages, or any other remedy other than declaratory  relief.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   I.  Insurance Coverage   VI.  Insurance Coverage  