(On behalf of Nationwide Breach Class and Missouri Subclass)   (On behalf of Nationwide Declaratory Judgment Class and Missouri Subclass)   27.  The novel coronavirus – named “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”  or “SARS-CoV2” – has spread widely and rapidly across the United States. The illness related to  SARS-CoV-2 is “novel coronavirus disease 2019,” commonly abbreviated to “COVID-19.”  Although the virus and related illness are distinct, for purposes of this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer  to both interchangeably as “COVID-19.”   28.  Over 1,100 Missourians and over 140,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 and  there have been over 37,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Missouri and over 3.8 million  confirmed cases in the United States, as of the date of this filing, according to the Coronavirus  Resource Center at Johns Hopkins University. See also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  (“CDC”) data.    29.  Plaintiffs’ insured property has been rendered unsuitable for its intended uses and  has been subject to a variety of limitations, restrictions, and prohibitions, including by government  Stay at Home Orders imposed by the States of Missouri and Kansas, Counties of Jackson, Boone,  and Wyandotte, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of Columbia, Missouri, and City of Kansas  City, Kansas.   30.  Orders restricting Plaintiffs’ operations are still in effect in Kansas City, Missouri,  Kansas City, Kansas, Jackson County, Missouri, Boone County, Missouri, and Wyandotte County,  Kansas as of the date of this filing.   67.  Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3)  and/or 23(c)(4), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,  and seeks to represent the following nationwide classes:  a. Nationwide Declaratory Judgment Class.  All business that are covered by  one of the Defendant’s policies in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic.  b. Nationwide Breach Class.  All businesses that are covered by one of the  Defendant’s policies in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic.   c. Missouri Subclass. All businesses that purchased one of Defendant’s Policies  in Missouri and are covered by one of the Defendant’s policies in effect during  the COVID-19 pandemic.   68.  Plaintiffs’ Classes satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and  superiority requirements of a class action under Rule 23, as set forth more fully herein.   70.  Commonality. There are questions of fact and law common to the Classes that  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions of law and fact  common to the Class arising from Defendant’s actions include, without limitation, the following:  a. Do the Policies cover losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic?  b. Do the Policies cover losses resulting from state and local Stay At Home Orders  requiring the suspension or reduction in business?   c. Has Defendant wrongfully denied claims for business losses resulting from  COVID-19 and/or the Stay at Home Orders?  d. Do any of the following provisions in the Policies cover losses due to COVID- 19: (i) physical loss or damage to property; (ii) business income; (iii) civil  authority; (v) ingress/egress; (vi) extra expense; and/or (vii) sue and labor?  e. Has Defendant breached its Policies by refusing to cover COVID-19 related  losses?  f. Are Class members entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses?   71.  Predominance. The questions set forth above predominate over any questions  affecting only individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of  consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness, and equity to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the claims asserted herein. Specifically, many thousands of businesses are  impacted by Defendant’s denial of coverage for COVID-19 losses and their claims arise from a  common factual predicate, which is the nationwide shutdown and suspension of activities due to  the virus.   72. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Classes as Plaintiffs were  subject to the same or similar policy provisions and the losses for all members relate to COVID- 19 and the related closure orders and the claims arise from the same legal theories.   74. Adequacy. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and Missouri  Subclass because they are members of the Class and their interests do not conflict with the interests  of those they seek to represent. The interests of the Class members will be fairly and adequately  protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting complex class  litigation.   75. Declaratory Relief and certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure. On information and belief, Defendant has refused, or intends to refuse,  coverage due to COVID-19 business interruption and other covered losses for all, or most,  policyholders with covered Policies and final injunctive and/or declaratory relief mandating that  Defendant cover the losses of Class members is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.   76. Issue Class and Modification of Class Definitions and Creation of Subclasses.  In the alternative, Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek certification of one or more common issues  pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). In addition, Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify the definitions of the  class and/or create subclasses either by amendment to the complaint or by motion for class  certification, including but not limited to subclasses for policyholders under specific Policy  provisions.  78.  The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, allows this Court to  declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties to this dispute.   79.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and the class,  on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand, concerning the respective rights and duties of  the parties under the Policies. Plaintiffs each requested coverage for COVID-19 related losses.  Over the course of various communications with Plaintiffs, Defendant has either denied coverage  or made clear that it will deny coverage. Defendant is in breach of its obligations by refusing to  provide coverage under the Policies. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant has  refused other, similar claims claiming that COVID-19 losses are not covered by the Policy.   80.  Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has breached the Policies in the following  respects:   a.  Plaintiffs and the class have suffered losses due to COVID-19  covered by the Policies.  b.  Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the class for those  losses.  c.  Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiffs and the class for those losses.   81.  Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and duties  under the Policies and request the Court declare the aforementioned conduct of Defendant  unlawful and in material breach of the policies so that future controversies may be avoided.  82.  The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully alleged herein.   84.  The Policies are valid and enforceable contracts between the Defendant and  Plaintiffs and class members.    85.  Plaintiffs and the class substantially performed their obligations under the terms of  the Policies including giving Defendant notice of their claims. Alternatively, Defendant has  waived any terms or conditions of coverage and may not assert any term or condition in the Policy  as a defense to liability.    86.  Plaintiffs and the class have sustained losses covered by the Policies arising from  the COVID-19 virus and associated state and local Stay at Home orders.     87.  Over the course of various communications with Plaintiffs, Defendant has either  denied coverage or made clear that it will deny coverage. Defendant is in breach of its obligations  by refusing to provide coverage under the Policies. Moreover, upon information and belief,  Defendant has refused or will refuse other, similar claims claiming that COVID-19 losses are not  covered by the Policies. Defendant therefore unjustifiably refuses to pay for losses covered by the  Policies, in breach of the Policies.    88.  Defendant has refused to pay claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class- wide basis, in breach of the Policies.   89.  Any conditions precedent to a claim for breach of contract under the Policies have  occurred, been satisfied, or, in any event, should be excused or otherwise discarded on the basis of  futility or other applicable law.  