13.  Plaintiff’s contract of insurance with Defendant bears Policy Number  12PRM049566-02 (the “Policy”) and is effective for the period of June 1, 2019 to June 1, 2020  (the “Policy Term”).  The Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.    14.  Plaintiff paid all premiums owed to Defendant under the Policy, and Defendant  accepted all such premiums from Plaintiff.    15.  The Policy is a form policy issued by Defendant.    16.  The Policy is an “all-risk” policy, which provides the broadest property insurance  coverage available.   17.  The Policy provides coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered  Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.”    18.  The Policy does not define the phrase “direct physical loss of or damage to . . . .”   19.  However, the use of the disjunctive “or” in the phrase “direct physical loss of or  damage to” means that coverage is triggered if either a physical loss of property or damage to  property occurs.   The concepts are separate and distinct and cannot be conflated.     20.  Physical loss of, or damage to, property may be reasonably interpreted to occur  when a covered cause of loss threatens or renders property unusable or unsuitable for its intended  purpose or unsafe for normal human occupancy and/or continued use.   21.  The Policy provides Plaintiff with, inter alia, various business income and extra  expense coverages during the Policy Term.     23.  Additional coverage is provided under the Policy for business income losses  resulting from an “action of civil authority” which prohibits access to the Covered Property, related  to  a “Covered Cause of Loss” at property other than the Covered Property:  “We will pay for the  actual loss of Business or Rental Income you sustain and necessary Extra Expense caused by  action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical  loss or damage to property, other than at the described premises, caused by or resulting from  any Covered Cause of Loss.”    24.  Members of the Class also purchased a policy of insurance from Defendant  providing for the same business income coverage, and using the same form policy provisions.  In Response to Covid-19, Pennsylvania and Other State Governments Issue  Sweeping Orders Shutting Down “Non-Essential” Businesses   25.  Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (“COVID-19”) has spread, and  continues to spread, rapidly across the United States and has been declared a pandemic by the  World  Health  Organization.  See  https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and- conditions/coronavirus-resource-center (last accessed May 6, 2020).   27.  According to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, COVID- 19 is widely accepted as a cause of real physical loss and damage. It 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 accessed May 6, 2020).   28.  Another study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, found: “Human  coronaviruses can remain infectious on inanimate surfaces at room temperature for up to 9 days.  At a temperature of 30°C or more the duration of persistence is shorter.” See  https://www.inverse.com/science/coronavirus-4-studies-explain-how-covid-19-sticks-to-surfaces  (last accessed May 6, 2020).   29.  In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, on March 6, 2020, the Governor of  Pennsylvania declared a “Disaster Emergency” throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.   Thereafter, on March 16, 2020, the Governor of Pennsylvania ordered that, starting on March 17,  2020, all restaurants and bars were to close their dine-in facilities, limiting their business to carry- out, delivery, and drive-through, and prohibiting all eating and drinking inside restaurants and bars.   And finally, on March 19, 2020, the Governor of Pennsylvania issued an Executive Order closing  all non-essential businesses.  Specifically, the Executive Order, which became effective  immediately upon its issuance, mandated that:    No person or entity shall operate a place of business in the Commonwealth that is  not a life sustaining business regardless of whether the business is open to members  of the public.   Governor Wolf, “Order of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania  Regarding the Closure of All Businesses that are not Life Sustaining,” (Mar. 19,  2020)  https://www.governor.pa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200319- TWW-COVID-19-business-closure-order.pdf (“Executive Order”).   31.  Most other states, including those in which the putative Class members reside  and/or do business, have issued similar compulsory shut-down orders for “non-essential”  businesses, or businesses deemed not to be “life sustaining.”   32.  The closure of all “non-life-sustaining businesses” evidences an awareness on the  part of both state and local governments that COVID-19 causes loss of or damage to property.  This  is particularly true in places of business open to the public, as the contact and interaction  necessarily incident to such businesses causes a heightened risk of the property becoming  contaminated.   33.  For example, a New York City Executive Order entered on March 16, 2020  specifically acknowledged that: “[COVID-19] physically is causing property loss and damage.”  See https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/executive-orders/2020/eeo-100.pdf (last  accessed May 6, 2020).     34.  Similarly, in a March 16, 2020 proclamation, the City of New Orleans  acknowledged COVID-19’s “propensity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time,  thereby spreading from surface to person and causing property loss and damage in certain  circumstances.” See https://nola.gov/mayor/executive-orders/emergency-declarations/03162020- mayoral-proclamation-to-promulgate-emergency-orders-during-the-state-of-emergency-due-to- co/ (last accessed May 6, 2020).     36.  Because the COVID-19 virus can survive on surfaces for up to fourteen days, the  Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately concluded that “any location . . .  where two or more  people can congregate is within the disaster area.”  Plaintiff Submits a Claim Under Its “All-Risk” Policy, and Defendant Wrongly  Fails and Refuses To Honor Its Obligations Respecting Same   37.  As a result of the orders governing Plaintiff, the Covered Property closed on March  17, 2020 and remains closed to this day, except for take-out service.   38.  Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, among other things, a substantial loss  of business income and additional expenses covered under the Policy.   39.  Plaintiff provided timely notice to Defendant of its claim for the interruption to its  business.   41.  Plaintiff’s Covered Property suffered “direct physical loss or damage” due to the  Governor of Pennsylvania’s Order (and other local governmental orders) mandating that Plaintiff  discontinue its primary use of the Covered Property as a dine-in eating and drinking establishment.   The Governor’s Order, in and of itself, constitutes a Covered Cause of Loss within the meaning of  the Policy.   42.  Alternatively, and to the extent the Governor’s Order does not constitute a Covered  Cause of Loss within the meaning of the Policy, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ubiquitous  nature of the COVID-19 virus caused a direct physical loss of or damage to Plaintiff’s Covered  Property.   43.  Further, and as an additional basis for coverage under the Policy, the ubiquitous  nature of the COVID-19 virus caused direct physical loss of or damage to property other than  Plaintiff’s Covered Property, and such loss or damage resulted in an “action by civil authority”  prohibiting access to Plaintiff’s Covered Property, within the meaning of the Policy.  Contrary To Defendant’s Position, The Virus Exclusion Does Not Apply   44.  The Policy contains a coverage exclusion for “loss or damage caused by or resulting  from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism” (Form CP 01 40 07 06) (the “Virus  Exclusion”).   45.  The Virus Exclusion does not preclude coverage for Plaintiff’s claim under the  Policy.   47.  Further, to the extent that the coverage under the policy derives from direct physical  loss or damage caused by the COVID-19 virus, either to Plaintiff’s Covered Property or to property  other than Plaintiff’s Covered property, Defendant should be estopped from enforcing the Virus  Exclusion, on principles of regulatory estoppel, as well as general public policy.   48.  In 2006, two insurance industry trade groups, Insurance Services Office, Inc.  (“ISO”) and the American Association of Insurance Services (“AAIS”), represented hundreds of  insurers in a national effort to seek approval from state insurance regulators for the adoption of the  Virus Exclusion.1   49.  In their filings with the various state regulators (including Pennsylvania), on behalf  of the insurers, ISO and AAIS represented that the adoption of the Virus Exclusion was only meant  to “clarify” that coverage for “disease-causing agents” has never been in effect, and was never  intended to be included, in the property policies.    50.  Specifically, in its “ISO Circular” dated July 6, 2006 and entitled “New  Endorsements Filed to Address Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria,” ISO represented to  the state regulatory bodies that:  While property policies have not been a source of recovery for losses involving  contamination by disease-causing agents, the specter of pandemic or hitherto  unorthodox transmission of infectious material raises the concern that insurers  employing such policies may face claims in which there are efforts to expand  coverage to create sources of recovery for such losses, contrary to policy intent.    52.  The foregoing representations made by the insurance industry were false.  By 2006,  the time of the state applications to approve the Virus Exclusion, courts had repeatedly found that  property insurance policies covered claims involving disease-causing agents, and had held on  numerous occasions that any condition making it impossible to use property for its intended use  constituted “physical loss or damage to such property.”   53.  The foregoing assertions by the insurance industry (including Defendant),  made to  obtain regulatory approval of the Virus Exclusion, were in fact misrepresentations and for this  reason, among other public policy concerns, insurers should now be estopped from enforcing the  Virus Exclusion to avoid coverage of claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic.   54.  In securing approval for the adoption of the Virus Exclusion by misrepresenting to  the state regulators that the Virus Exclusion would not change the scope of coverage, the insurance  industry effectively narrowed the scope of the insuring agreement without a commensurate  reduction in premiums charged.  Under the doctrine of regulatory estoppel, the Court should not  permit the insurance industry to benefit from this type of duplicitous conduct before the state  regulators.   56.  Defendant’s denial of lost business income claims has left Plaintiff and the Class  without vital coverage acquired to ensure the survival of their businesses during this temporary  suspension of operations.    57.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of the Class,  defined as follows:   All policyholders in the United States who purchased commercial property  coverage, including business or interruption income (and extra expense) coverage  from Defendant and who have been denied coverage under their policy for lost  business income after being ordered by a governmental entity, in response to the  COVID-19 pandemic, to shut down or otherwise curtail or limit in any way their  business operations.   58.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its officers, directors, legal  representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class are any  judicial officer presiding over this matter, members of their immediate family, and members of  their staff.   59.  The members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that  joinder would be impracticable. Class members are readily identifiable from information and  records in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.   61.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the absent class members and have a  common origin and basis. Plaintiff and absent Class members are all injured by Defendant’s refusal  to afford the purchased coverage. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same practices and course of  conduct giving rise to the claims of the absent Class members and are based on the same legal  theories, namely the refusal to provide insurance coverage for the loss. If prosecuted individually,  the claims of each Class member would necessarily rely upon the same material facts and legal  theories and seek the same relief. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same practices and course of  conduct that give rise to the other Class members’ claims and are based on the same legal theories.   62.  Plaintiff will fully and adequately assert and protect the interests of the absent Class  members and has retained Class counsel who are experienced and qualified in prosecuting class  action cases similar to this one. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s attorneys has any interests contrary  to or conflicting with the interests of absent Class members.    63.  The questions of law and fact common to all Class members predominate over any  questions affecting only individual class members.    65.  Additionally, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members  would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class  members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. Such individual  actions would create a risk of adjudications that would be dispositive of the interests of other Class  members and impair their interests. Defendant, through its uniform conduct, acted or refused to  act on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, making declaratory relief appropriate  to the Class as a whole.  66.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.   67.  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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).   68.  An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the  rights, duties, responsibilities and obligations of the parties in that Plaintiff contends and Defendant  disputes and denies that the Policy provides coverage to Plaintiff for any current and future lost  business income, subject to the limit of liability, for the temporary suspension of Plaintiff’s  operations.     70.  Plaintiff’s loss of use, loss of access, and loss of functionality of the Covered  Property when government shutdown orders made it unlawful for Plaintiff to fully access, use, and  operate its business at the Covered Property, constitutes a direct physical loss of the Covered  Property under the Policy.  Alternatively, the ubiquitous nature of the COVID-19 virus caused  direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property by preventing Plaintiff from using the  Covered Property for its intended purpose.   71.  Additionally, the government shutdown orders or, alternatively, the ubiquitous  nature of the COVID-19 virus, caused direct physical loss of or damage to property other than the  Covered Property, thereby invoking coverage under the Policy’s “Civil Authority” provision for  “actual loss of Business or Rental Income . . . caused by action of civil authority that prohibits  access to the described premises.”     72.  The Policy constitutes a valid and binding agreement obligating the Defendant to  indemnify Plaintiff for covered losses.   73.  Plaintiff has substantially performed or otherwise satisfied all conditions precedent  to bringing this action and obtaining coverage pursuant to the Policy and applicable law, or  alternatively, Plaintiff has been excused from performance by Defendant’s acts, representations,  conduct, or omissions.    74.  Defendant has failed to indemnify Plaintiff for its covered losses.   75.  No exclusion to coverage, including the Virus Exclusion, applies.     76.  Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer a covered loss under the Policy.   78.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.   79.  Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract of insurance; here, the Policy.   80.  The Class members entered into a substantially identical policy with Defendant.   81.  Under the Policy, Defendant agreed to indemnify Plaintiff and the Class for their  business losses as a result of a covered loss.   82.  Plaintiff and the Class members suffered a covered loss under the Policy.   83.  Plaintiff and the Class members timely submitted a notice of claim and satisfied all  conditions precedent to receiving the coverage it purchased from Defendant.    84.  Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff and the Class members by failing and  refusing to provide the contracted for coverage.   85.  Defendant’s breach of the contract has caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer  damages in the amount of their unreimbursed business losses or their limits of liability, whichever  is lower.  BREACH OF CONTRACT   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Plaintiff Purchased an “All-Risk” Policy of Property Insurance That Broadly  Provides Coverage for Loss of Business Income, Among Other Things  