33.  In December 2019, an initial cluster of nine patients with an unknown cause of viral  pneumonia was found to be linked to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, China, where many  non-aquatic animals such as birds were also on sale.  However, one of the patients never visited  the market, though he had stayed in a hotel nearby before the onset of the illness.4    35.  The first confirmed case of the virus outside China was diagnosed on January 13,  2020 in Bangkok, Thailand with the number of cases exceedingly increasing worldwide.  On  January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the SARS-COv-2 outbreak  constituted a public health emergency of international concern, and by February 11, 2020, the virus  was named “COVID-19” by the WHO Director-General.7  As of April 15, 2020, the WHO reports  a confirmed 1.9 million cases of COVID-19 globally and over 123,000 deaths, with the United  States dealing with more than 578,000 confirmed cases and 23,000 deaths - more than any other  country.8     37.  It has now been discovered by scientists that COVID-19 has several modes of  transmission.  Pursuant to a “Situation Report” released by the WHO, the virus can be transmitted  through  symptomatic  transmission,  pre-symptomatic  transmission,  or  asymptomatic  transmission.11  Symptomatic transmission refers to transmission by an individual who is  experiencing symptoms associated with the virus who then transfers COVID-19 to another  individual.  Data from published studies provide evidence that COVID-19 is primarily transmitted  from symptomatic people to others who are in close contact through respiratory droplets, by direct  contact with infected persons, or by contact with contaminated objects and surfaces.12   39.  An individual who does not develop symptoms, an asymptomatic case of COVID- 19, can still transmit the virus to another.  Though there are few documented cases reported, it does  not exclude the possibility that it has or may occur.15   40.  Not only is COVID-19 transmitted via human-to-human, but the WHO and  scientific studies have confirmed that the virus can live on contaminated objects or surfaces.   According to a study by scientists documented in The New England Journal of Medicine, COVID- 19 was detectable 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.16  All of these materials are  used in the preparation and service of food by restaurants.  The results of the study suggest that  individuals could get COVID-19 through indirect contact with surfaces or objects used by an  infected person, whether they were symptomatic.    44.  The secondary exposure of the surface to humans is particularly acute in places  where the public gathers typically to socialize, eat, drink, shop, be entertained, and go for  recreation. This is why the CDC recommends that in viral outbreaks individuals who are infected  stay at home and those who are not sick engage in preventive measures such as constant hand  washing and avoiding activities that would bring them into close proximity of people with the virus  or surfaces where the virus may reside. However, because these recommendations have proven  ineffective to minimize the spread of COVID-19, containment efforts have led to civil authorities  issuing orders closing non-essential business establishments, including restaurants, bars, hotels,  theaters, personal care salons, gyms, and schools, and mandating social distancing among the  population. This has caused the cancelation of sporting events, parades, and concerts, the closure of  amusement parks, and substantial travel restrictions. In addition, to conserve medical supplies,  orders have been issued prohibiting the performance of non-urgent or non-emergency elective  procedures and surgeries, forcing the suspension of operations at many medical, surgical,  therapeutic, and dental practices.   46.  Hartford’s insurance policies issued to Plaintiffs and the Class Members are “all  risk” commercial property polices which cover loss or damage to the covered premises resulting  from all risks other than those expressly excluded.   47.  Plaintiffs’ Policy, as well as the policies of other Class Members, are standard forms  that are used by Hartford for all insureds having applicable coverage.    C.  Plaintiffs’ Factual Allegations   48.  Among the coverages provided by the Policy was business interruption insurance,  which, generally, would indemnify Plaintiffs for lost income and profits in the event that their  businesses were shut down.   49.  SA Plaintiffs’ Property Choice – Special Business Income Coverage Form  (Business Interruption), Form PC 00 20 01 13 provided coverage as follows:  We will pay up to the Special Business Income Business Income Limit of Insurance  stated in the Property Choice Schedule of Premises and Coverages for the actual  loss of Business Income you sustain the actual, necessary and reasonable Extra  Expense you incur due to the necessary interruption of your business operations  during the Period of Restoration due to direct physical loss of or direct physical  damage to. property caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss at  “Scheduled Premises” where a limit of insurance is shown for Special Business  Income. If you are a tenant, this Coverage applies to portion of the building which  you rent, lease occupy, and extends to common service areas and access routes to  your area.  .   50.  In addition SA Plaintiff’s Policy contained Property Choice Special Business  Income – Additional Coverages, Form PC 26 02 01 13, which provides:  This insurance is extended to apply to the actual loss of Business Income  you sustain and the actual, necessary and reasonable Extra Expense you incur when  access to your “Scheduled Properties” is specifically prohibited by order of a civil  authority as the direct result of a Covered Cause of Loss to property in the  immediate area of your “Scheduled Premises”.   52.  Under the SA Plaintiffs’ Property Choice Special Business Income – Additional  Coverages form, Extra Expense is defined as:  the actual, necessary and reasonable expenses you incur during the Period of  Restoration that you would not have incurred if there had been no direct physical  loss of or direct physical damage to property caused by or resulting from a Covered  Cause of Loss at “Scheduled Premises”.  We will pay Extra Expense (other than  the expense to repair or replace property) to:  a.  Avoid or minimize suspension of business and to continue operation at a  “Scheduled Premises” or at replacement premises or temporary locations  including relocation expenses and costs to equip and operate the  replacement location or temporary location.  b.  Minimize the suspension of business if you cannot continue operations.  We  will also pay Extra Expenses to repair or replace property, but only to the  extent reduces the amount of loss that otherwise would have been payable  under  the Coverage Form.  c.  Extra Expense Coverage does not apply to any expense related to any recall  of products you manufacture, handle or distribute.    53.  In the SA Plaintiff’s Policy defines Causes of Loss in a separate form of the Policy,  Property Choice – Covered Causes of Loss and Exclusions Form, Form PC 10 10 01 13.  A  Covered Cause of Loss “means direct physical loss or direct physical damage that occurs during  the Policy period and in the Coverage Territory unless the loss or damage is excluded or limited  in this policy.”    54.  The interruption of Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ businesses was not caused  by any of the exclusions set forth in the applicable Policy.    56.  Plaintiffs and all similarly situated Class members have suffered a direct physical  loss of and damage to their property because they have been unable to use their property for its  intended purpose.    57.  The exclusion contained in the Virus and Bacteria endorsement is not applicable  because Plaintiffs’, and other class members’, losses were not caused by a “virus, bacterium or  other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease”,  Rather, the efficient proximate cause of Plaintiffs’, and other Class Members’ losses, were   precautionary measures taken by their respective States to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the  future, not because coronavirus was found in or on Plaintiffs’ insured property.   58.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, by way of letter dated April 8, 2020, the Hartford  denied SA Plaintiffs’ claim for business interruption losses under the Policy because their  properties had not suffered any direct physical loss and because the losses were excluded by the  bacteria and virus exclusion endorsement, and other exclusions which were not applicable to  Plaintiffs’ losses.   D.  The COVID-19 Pandemic has Affected Policyholders Nationwide.   59.  COVID-19 is physically impacting private commercial property in New York and  throughout the United States, threatening the survival of thousands of restaurants, retail  establishments, and other businesses that have had their business operations suspended or curtailed  indefinitely by order of civil authorities.   60.  No insurer intends to cover any losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.   62.  In addition, many state departments of insurance have issued advisories to business  owners that COVID-19 is not an insured peril and there will be no coverage for business  interruption. This is disinformation being published to discourage business owners from filing  claims.   63.  For instance, Arkansas Insurance Department Bulletin No. 9-2020 states that “In  most BII policies, coverage is triggered when the policyholder sustains physical damage to insured  property caused by a covered peril resulting in quantifiable business interruption loss . .   . viruses  and disease are typically NOT an insured peril unless added by endorsement (emphasis in the  original).26   64.  The South Carolina Department of Insurance issues “Guidance” on business  interruption insurance stating that under the business income policy, there likely is no coverage  from losses resulting from a virus.27   66.  For instance, the State of Connecticut Insurance Department, Maryland Insurance  Administration and the West Virginia Office of the Insurance Commissioner issued nearly  identical notices supporting the insurance companies’ reasons for denying business interruption  claims, stating that the potential loss costs from such perils [like COVID-19] are so extreme that  providing coverage would jeopardize the financial solvency of property insurers.28   67.  John F. King, Insurance and Safety Fire Commission for the State of Georgia issued  Bulletin 20-EX-3 stating that losses from COVID-19 are excluded losses.29 Vicki Schmidt, Kansas  Insurance Department Commission issued a similar Bulletin stating it was her “understanding it is  unlikely that a business policy would cover losses related to COVID-19.”30   69.  A declaratory judgment determining that the business income loss and extra  expense coverage provided in common all-risk commercial property insurance policies applies to  the suspension, curtailment, and interruption of business operations resulting from measures put  into place by civil authorities is necessary to prevent the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Class  members from being denied critical coverage for which they have paid.  70.  Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and  (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated.   72.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify, expand, or amend the definitions of the  proposed classes following the discovery period and before the Court determines whether class  certification is appropriate.   73.  Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because  Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as  would prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.  Numerosity   74.  This action satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). The Class numbers  at least in the hundreds and consists of geographically dispersed business entities who are insured  for business interruption losses. Hartford sells many insurance policies in the State of New York  and most, if not all, other states and therefore joinder of the Class members is impracticable.   75.  The identity of Class members is ascertainable, as the names and addresses of all  Class members can be identified in Hartford’s or their agent’s books and records. Plaintiffs  anticipate providing appropriate notice to the certified Class in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P.  23(c)(2)(A) and/or (B), to be approved by the Court after class certification, or pursuant to court  order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d).  Typicality   77.  Plaintiffs are committed to prosecuting the action, will fairly and adequately protect  the interests of the members of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  class action litigation, including litigation relating to insurance policies. Plaintiffs have no interests  antagonistic to or in conflict with other members of the Class. Plaintiffs anticipate no difficulty in  the management of this litigation as a class action.  Commonality   79.  This action satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the rights of the Class  members. The joinder of individual Class members is impracticable because of the vast number of  Class members who have entered into the standard all-risk commercial property insurance policies  with the Defendants.   80.  Because a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations under the uniform  all-risk commercial property insurance policies will apply to all Class members, most or all Class  Members would have no rational economic interest in individually controlling the prosecution of  specific actions. The burden imposed on the judicial system by individual litigation, and to  Hartford, by even a small fraction of the Class members, would be enormous.   81.  In comparison to piecemeal litigation, class action litigation presents far fewer  management difficulties, far better conserves the resources of both the judiciary and the parties,  and far more effectively protects the rights of each Class member. The benefits to the legitimate  interests of the parties, the Court, and the public resulting from class action litigation substantially  outweigh the expenses, burdens, inconsistencies, economic infeasibility, and inefficiencies of  individualized litigation. Class adjudication is superior to other alternatives under Fed.R.Civ.P.  23(b)(3)(D). Class treatment will also avoid the substantial risk of inconsistent factual and legal  determinations on the many issues in this lawsuit.   83.  Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-82 as if fully set forth  herein.   84.  Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the  National Class and New York Subclass.   85.  Plaintiffs’ Hartford Policy, as well as those of the other Class Members, are  contracts under which Hartford was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’  and the other Class Members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy.   86.  Plaintiffs and other Class Members have complied with all applicable provisions of  the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hartford or Hartford is estopped from  asserting them, and yet Hartford has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the  Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms and has wrongfully and illegally refused to provide  coverage to which Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled.   87.  Hartford has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class-wide basis,  without individual bases or investigations, so the Court can render declaratory judgment no matter  whether members of the Class have filed a claim.   89.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Class Members seek a  declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following:  i.   Plaintiffs’ and the other Class Members’ Business Income losses incurred in  connection with the Closure Order and the necessary interruption of their  businesses stemming from Orders intended to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic  are insured losses under their Policies; and  ii.  Hartford is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and other Class Members for the full amount  of the Business Income losses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the  Closure Order during the period of restoration and the necessary interruption of  their businesses stemming from Orders intended to mitigate the COVID-19  pandemic.  90.  Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-89 as if fully set forth  herein.   91.  Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the  National Class and New York Subclass.   92.  Plaintiffs’ Hartford Policy, as well as those of the other Class members, are  contracts under which Hartford was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’  and the other Class Members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy.   94.  Hartford also agreed to pay for its insureds’ actual loss of Business Income  sustained due to the necessary “interruption of [their] operations” during the “Period of  Restoration” caused by direct physical loss or damage.    95.  “Business Income” under the Policy means the “Net Income (Net Profit or Net Loss  before income taxes), including Income and Royalties, that would have been earned or incurred”,  as well as “[c]ontinuing normal operating expenses incurred, including Payroll Expenses”   96.  The Closure Orders caused direct physical loss and damage to Plaintiffs’ and the  other Class Members’ Covered Properties, requiring suspension of operations at the Covered  Properties. Losses caused by the Closure Orders thus triggered the Business Income provision of  Plaintiffs’ and the other Class Members’ Hartford policies.   97.  Plaintiffs and the other Class Members have complied with all applicable  provisions of their policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Hartford or Hartford   estopped from asserting them, and yet Hartford has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations  pursuant to the Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms.   98.  By denying coverage for any Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiffs and  other Class Members as a result of the Closure Orders and Orders intended to mitigate the COVID- 19 pandemic, Hartford has breached its coverage obligations under the Policies.   A.  The Global COVID-19 Pandemic   BREACH OF CONTRACT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE  (Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and New York Subclasses)   DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE  (Claim Brought on Behalf of the National Class and New York  Subclass)   FELICE CHAMBERS LLC, and FELICE  WATER STREET LLC on behalf of  themselves and all others similarly situated,  Plaintiff,  v.  LAFAYETTE RISTORANTE LLC, FELICE  GOLD STREET LLC, SA 61ST  MANAGEMENT LLC, SA YORK AVE LLC, 