FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`StJPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF KINGS
`
`Index NO三
`SUp皿燿ONS
`
`JACK IRWIN,D.D.S
`
`PI西■1二
`
`-ag nst
`
`MIDVALE NDENNITY COMPANY
`Detndant
`
`TO TⅡE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT:
`
`Plaintiff designates Kings
`County as the place oftrial
`
`The basis ofvenue is:
`CPLR 503(a) and 503(d):
`PlaintifPs residence and
`substantial part of events or
`omissions occurring in County
`
`X
`
`YOU ARE EF.REBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a
`copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this surnmons, to sewe a notic€ of
`appearance on the Plaintiffs' attomeys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive
`of the day of service, *,here service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or,
`within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. ln case of
`your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken apinst you by default for the relief dernanded
`in the complaint.
`
`DatedI New York,New York
`July 3,2020
`
`TO:
`Midvale Indemnity Company
`6000 American Parkway,
`Madison WI 53783
`
`Ranあ1"D
`DOUGLAS&
`Attomeys for
`59 Malden Lane,6 Floor
`Ncw York,New York 10038
`
`N,P.C
`
`(212)566-75()0
`
`1 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`SUPRE市 優ECOURT OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF KINGS
`
`JACK IRWIN,D.D.S
`
`Plaimi二
`
`―aganst
`
`N圧DVALE BヾDEMNITY CO〜PANY
`
`[)cfbnda■lt
`
`X
`
`X
`
`VERIΠED
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff JACK IRWIN,DDS,a solc propncbrship,(hcrcinaner,`?laintifr'),brings this
`
`Complaint alle,ng relief against Dcindants,MIDVALE Dヾ IDEMNITY COMPANY,and avσ s
`
`asお 1lowsi
`
`l.
`
`I. NATURE《 )F TⅡE CASE
`
`This is a civil action seeking declaratory relief arising from PlaintiffJACK IRWIN
`
`DDS'S contract of insurance with the Defendant.
`2.
`
`ln light of the Coronavirus global pandemic (*COVID- 19") and state and local
`
`orders ("Civi[ Authority Orders") mandating that all non-essential in store businesses such as
`
`Plaintiffs cease or restrict operations, Plaintiffhas sustained significant business losses.
`3.
`
`PlaintifFs insurance policy is an All Risk Policy and provides coverage for all non-
`
`excluded business losses, and thus provides coverage here.
`4.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief that Plainfiff is covered for all
`
`business losses that have been incurred in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations ofall
`
`lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.
`tr.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action for a declaratory judgnrent is within this Court's general original
`
`jurisdiction and not within thejurisdiction ofany court of limited jurisdiction ofthis state.
`
`2 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the Defendant has
`
`transacted, solicited and conducted business in New York through its employees, agents, affiliates
`
`and/or sales representatives and has derived substantial revenue from such business in New York.
`
`Defendant is licensed to do business in New York State and has purposely availed itselfofpersonal
`
`jurisdiction in New York because it contracted to provide insurance to Plaintiffin New York which
`
`is the subject ofthis case.
`7.
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction ofover defendant pwsuant to CPLR $302.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction ofover defendant pwsuant to CPLR $302(a)( 1)
`
`in that defendant transacted business within the state and supplied good and services within New
`
`York State.
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in Kings County pursuant to CPLR $503 because Plaintifls office
`
`is located in this county and because a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to this
`
`claim occurred in Kings County.
`
`PARTIES
`10. At all relevant times, Plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS is a sole proprietorship
`
`authorized to do business and doing business in the State ofNew York, County of Kings.
`1 1 . Plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS operates a dental practice whose revenue depends
`
`substantially upon the ability ofpatients to visit that facility.
`12. Defendant MIDVALE INDEMMTY COMPANY ('MIDVALE") is an insurance
`
`carrier with its principal place of business in Madison, Wisconsin located at 6000 American
`
`Parkway, Madison WI 53783. MIDVALE operated in this State and Comty at all relevant times.
`13. At all relevant times, DeGndant MIDVALE provides business intemrption
`
`coverage to its insureds, including the Plaintiff-
`
`3 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`14. Defendant MIDVALE issued an All Risk Insurance Policy to the JACK IRWIN
`DDS (Policy Number 8PP1039186 ) for the period of February 15,2020 to February 15,2021.
`
`See. Policy, attached as Exhibit A.
`15. The policy, currently in full effect, includes All Risk coveftrge which incorporates
`
`business interruption coverage for, among other things, business personal property and income
`
`protection and extra expense.
`16. Plaintiff has paid the policy premiums to MIDVALE specifically to provide
`
`covemges of lost business income and extra expenses in the event of an involuntary business
`
`intemrption.
`17. In light of the Coronavirus global pandemic C'COVID-I9") and state and local
`orders ("Civil Authority Orders") mandating that all non-essential in store businesses such as
`Plaintifls cease or restrict operations, Plaintiff sustained significant business losses.
`
`Consequently, Plaintiffproperly and promptly submitted an insurance claim to defendant for losses
`
`and damages. On or about May 7,2020, Defendant denied Plaintifls claim and asserted that
`
`Plaintilf was not entitled to any coverage. See. Denial Letter, aftached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`ⅡI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Insurance Coyerage
`l8 On or about February 15, 2020, Defendant entered into a contract of insurance with
`
`the Plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS specifically to provide, among other things, business income
`
`coverage in the event of business intemrption or closures by order of Civil Authority, and for
`
`business losses as a result of propeffy damage at its location in Kings County, State ofNew York
`
`(the "Covered Properties").
`
`4 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`19 The Covered Property consist of the following location:
`. JACK IRWIN DDS a dental practice located al 414 7th Avenue,
`Brooklyn, New York.
`20. The Covered Property is covered under a Special All Risk Business Insurance
`
`Policy to the Plaintiffissued by the Defendant to Plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS with Policy Number
`
`BPP1039186.
`21. The Plaintifls Policy is currently in full effec! providing, among other things
`covemge for property, business personal property, income protection & extra expense, and
`
`additional coverages between the period of February 15, 2020 to February 15,2021.
`22. Plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS faithfully paid policy premiums to Defendant,
`
`specifically to provide, among other things, coverage for the loss of business income and extra
`
`expense sustained in the event ofbusiness intemrption or closures by order of Civil Authority.
`23. Under the Policy, insurance is extended to apply to the actual loss of business
`
`income sustained and the actual, necessary and reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to
`
`the Covered Property is specifically prohibited by order of civil authority as the direct result ofa
`
`covered cause of loss to property in the immediate area of PlaintifPs Covered Property. This
`
`additional covemge is identified as coverage under "Civil Authority."
`24 Based on information and belief, the Defendant accepted the policy premiums with
`
`no intention of providing coverage for business income losses resulting from orders of a Civil
`
`Authority that the Covered Property be shut down or restricted, or any related losses and/or
`
`damages.
`25 Defendant's denial of coverage is based on its claim that the Covered Properties
`
`did not sustain direct physical loss or damage. See Denial Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`26. However, Defendant's nanow reading of "loss" renders the Civil Authority
`
`5 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`coverage ineffectual and demonstrates Defendant had no intention ofproviding coverage for losses
`
`Plaintiff faithfully paid premiums to insure against.
`B.
`
`The Coronavirus Pendemic
`27. 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 the
`
`Covered Proper[ would be a direct physical loss requiring remediation to clean the surfaces of
`
`the salon.
`28. The virus that causes COVID-l9 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. httos ://www. n i h. sov/news-events/news-releases/new-
`
`coronavi rus-stable-hours-s urfaces.
`29. The CDC has issued a guidance that gatherings ofmore than l0 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-l9.
`30. The global Coronavirus pandemic is exacerbated by the fact that the deadly virus
`
`physically infects and stays on surfaces of objects or materials, "fomites," for up to twenty-eight
`
`(28) days.
`31. Chinq Italy, France, and Spain have implemented the cleaning and fumigating of
`
`public areas prior to allowing them to re-op€n publicly due to the intnrsion of microbials.
`32. COVID- l9 is a virus.
`33. COVID- 19 is a physical substance.
`34. COVID-I9 is a human pathogen,
`35. COVID-19 can be present outside the human body in viral fluid particles.
`
`6 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`36. COVID-l9 can and does live on and/or remains capable of being transmitted and
`
`active on inert physical surfaces.
`37 . COVID- 19 can and does live on and,/or remains capable of being transmitted and
`
`active on floors, walls, furniture, desks, tables, chairs, equipment and other items ofproperty for a
`
`period of time.
`38. CO\IID- l9 can be transmitted by way of human contact with surfaces and items of
`
`physical property on which COVID-19 particles are physically present.
`39. COVID-19 has been transmiued by way of human contact with surfaces and items
`
`ofphysical property located at premises in Bronx Cormty.
`40. COVID- l9 can be transmitted by human to human contact and interactron at
`
`premises in Bronx County, include places such as the business entities herein.
`41. COVID-I9 has been transmitted by human to human contact and interaction at
`
`premises in Bronx Coun$.
`42. COVID-l9 can be transmitted through airborne viral particles emitted into the air
`
`at premises.
`43. COVID-19 has been transmitted by way of human contact with airbome COVID-
`
`19 particles emitted into the air at premises in Kings County.
`44. The presence ofany COVID-19 particles renders items ofphysical proper[ unsafe.
`45. The presence of any COVID-I9 particles on physical property impairs its value,
`
`usefulness andlor normal funcEon.
`46. The presence ofany COVID-19 particles causes direct physical harm to property,
`47. The presence ofCOVID-19 particles causes direct physical loss to property.
`48. The presence ofCOVID-19 particles causes direct physical damage to property.
`
`7 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`49. The presence of any COVID-19 particles at premises renders the premises unsafe,
`
`thereby impairing the premises' value, usefulness and/or normal function.
`50. The presence of people infected with or carrying COVID-I9 particles renders
`physical property in their vicini[ unsafe and unusable, resulting in direct physical loss to that
`
`properfy.
`51. The presence of people infected with or carrying COViD-ig particles at premises
`
`renders the premises, including property located at that premises, unsafe, resulfing in direct
`
`physical loss to the premises and the property.
`52. State and local govemmental authorities, and public health officials around the
`
`Country acknowledge that COVID-l9 and the Pandemic cause direct physical loss and damage to
`
`property. For example,
`
`The City of New York issued an Emergency Executive Order in
`response to COVID-I9 and the Pandemic, in part, "because the virus
`physically is causing property loss and damage." (Emphasis added).
`
`The State of Colorado issued a Public Health Order that "COVID-
`19....physically contribute to property loss, contamination and
`damage." (Emphasis added).
`
`Broward County, Florida issued an Emergency Order acknowledging
`COVID-19 "is physically causing property damage." (Emphasis).
`
`The State of Washington issued a stay at home Proclamation stating that
`the "COVID- 19 pandemic and its progression... remains a public
`disaster affecting life, health, [and] property... " (Emphasis added).
`
`The State of Indiana issued an Executive Order recognizing that
`COVID- 19 has the propensity to physically impact surfaces and
`personal property." (Emphasis added).
`
`The City ofNew Orleans issued an order stating that'1here is reason to
`believe that COVID-19 may spread amongst the population by various
`means of exposure, including the propensity to attach to surfaces for
`prolonged period of time, thereby spreading fiom suface to person and
`causing property loss and damage in certain circumstances."
`
`8 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`(Emphasis added).
`
`The State of Illinois issued an Executive Order describing COVID-19's
`"propensiry to physically impacl surfaces and personal property."
`(Emphasis added).
`
`The State of New Mexico issued a Public Health Order acknowledging
`the'threat" COVID-19 "poses" to "property." (Emphasis added).
`
`North Carolina issued a statewide Executive Order in response to the
`Pandemic not only "to .lssure adequate protection for lives," but also to
`"assue adequate protection of. . . .property." (Emphasis added).
`
`The City of Los Angeles issued an Order in response to COVID-19
`"because among other reasons, the COVID-I9 virus can spread easily
`fiom person to person and it is physically causing property loss or
`damage due to its tendency to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods
`of time." @mphasis added).
`
`C. CⅣ il Authoritv
`53. In response to COVID- l9 and the Pandemic the Govemor of New York has issued
`
`multiple executive orders pursuant to the authority vested by laws ofNew York.
`54. In response to COVID- 19 and the pandemic, the New York State of Health pursuant
`
`to its authority under New York State Law has issued multiple orders including a Stay at Home
`
`Order.
`
`55. The State ofNew York is a civil authori[ as contemplated by the Policy.
`56. The New York State Departrnent of Health is a civil authority as contemplated by
`
`the Policy.
`57. The Governor of the State of New York is a civil authority as contemplated by the
`
`Policy.
`
`58. On March 7,2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared a Disaster
`
`Emergency for the entire state of New York as a result of COVID-I9.
`59 On March 12,2020, Govemor Cuomo set restrictions on large gatherings.
`
`9 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`60. On March 20,2020, the State of New York issued a stay-at-home order that all non-
`
`essential workers must stay at home as a result of the COVID- 19 pandemic. To date, this order has
`
`been extended to at least June 13,2020.
`61. As of March 22, 2020, Govemor Cuomo ordered all "non-essential businesses"
`
`statewide to be closed. See. State's Executive order 202.6. This Order remained in effect up to on
`
`or about June 8,2020 when Phase 1 re-opening in New York State commenced. The Govemor
`
`ordered that essential businesses could remain open subject to restriction. Essential businesses
`
`include hotels (infrastructure) and restaurants/bars (but only for take-ouVdelivery) (retail).
`
`Any dine-in or on-premise restaurant or bar service, is specifically deemed non-essential.
`62. Further, on April 10,2020 President Tmmp seemed to support insurance coverage
`
`for business loss like that suffered by the Plaintiff:
`
`REPORTER: Mr. President may I ask you about credit and debt as well.
`Many American individuals, families, have had to tap their credit cards
`during this period of time. And businesses have had to draw down their
`credit lines. Are you concemed Mr. President that that may hobble the U.S.
`economy, all ofthat debt number one? And number two, would you suggest
`to credit card companies to reduce their fees during this time?
`
`PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well it's something that we've already suggested,
`we're talking to them. Business interruption insurance,l'd like to see these
`insurance companies-you know you have people that have paid. When I
`was in private I had business intemrption. When my business was
`intemrpted tkough a hurricane or whatever it may be, I'd have business
`where I had it, I didn't always have i! sometimes I had it, sometimes, I had
`a lot of different companies. But if I had it I'tl apect to he paid You have
`people. I speak rnastly to the restautalears, where they have a restaurant,
`they've been paying for 25,30,35 years, business intemrption. They've
`never needed it. All ofa sudden they need it. And I'm very good at reading
`language. I did very well in these subjects, OK. And I don't see the word
`pandemic mentioned. Now in some cases it is, it's an exclusion. But in a lot
`ofcases I don't see it. I don't see it referenced. And they don't want to pay
`up. I would like to see the insurance companies pay if they need to pay, if
`it's fair. And they know what's faiq and I know what's fair, I can tell you
`very quickly. But business intemrption insurance, that's getting a lot money
`to a lot of people. And they've been paying for years, sometimes they just
`
`10 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`started paying, but you have people that have never asked for business
`intemrpion insurance, and they've been paying a lot of money for a lot of
`years for the privilege of having it, and then when they finally need it, the
`insurance company says 'we're not going to give it.' We can't let that
`happen.
`
`&s, https://youtu.bc′ cMcG5C9TiU (emphasis added)
`63. The President is articulating a few core points:
`. Business intemrpion is a cornmon type of insurance.
`. Businesses pay in premiums for this covemge and should reasonably
`expect they'll receive the benefit ofthe coverage.
`. This pandemic should be covered unless there is a specific exclusion for
`pandemics.
`. If insurers deny coverage, they would be acting in bad faith.
`64. These Orders and proclamations, as they relate to the closure ofall "non-essential
`
`businesses" and restrictions on essential businesses evidence an awareness on the pad ofboth state
`
`and local governments that COVID-l9 causes damage to property. This is particularly true in
`
`places where business is conducted, such as Plaintiffs, as the requisite contact and interaction
`
`causes a heightened risk of the property becoming unsuitable for business.
`65. Plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS suffered losses as a direct consequence of the Civil
`
`Authority stay-at-home orders for public safety issued by the Govemor of New York and the State
`
`of New York generally. Accordingly, Plaintiffhas submitted a claim to Defendant related to such
`
`losses.
`
`66. However, Defendant has denied Plaintiffs claims in contravention of the clear
`
`policy language entitling Plaintiffs to coverage for business losses arising out of the Civil
`
`Authority Orders.
`
`11 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`D.
`
`lmoact on Plaintiff
`67 . As a result of the Orders reference( herein, plaintiff JACK IRWIN DDS shut its
`
`doors to dental palien6 not receiving emergency care.
`68. Plaintifls business loss occurred when the State of New York declared a State of
`Emergency on March 7 , 2020 It suffered further when the State of New York required all non
`
`essential businesses to shut down on March 20, 2020.
`69. Prior to March 7, 2020 Plaintiff was opened to patients for all dental needs.
`Plaintiffs' dental pracfice is not a closed environment, and because people - staff, patients,
`community members, and others - constantly cycle in and out of the dental practice office/suite,
`
`there is an ever-present risk that the Covered Property is contaminated and would continue to be
`
`contaminated. In fact, it's probable that Plaintiffs dental practices suffered contamination based
`
`upon patients later being diagrrosed as suffering from Coronavirus (COVID-19).
`70. Businesses like the Plainti{Fs dental practice are more susceptible to being or
`
`becoming contaminated, as both respiratory droplets and fomites are more likely to be retained on
`
`the Covered Property and remain viable for far longer as compared to a facility with open-air
`
`ventilation.
`71. Plaintiffs business is also highly susceptible to rapid person-to-property
`
`transmission ofthe virus, and vice-versa, because the service nature ofthe businesses place staff
`
`and patients in close proximity to the property and to one another and because the nature of a
`
`dental practice involves a high level of respiratory droplets and fomites being released into the
`
`air ofthe property during dental procedures and contacting dental equipment.
`72. The virus is physically impacting Plaintiff. Any effort by defendant to deny the
`
`reality that the virus causes physical loss and damage would constitute a false and potentially
`
`12 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`fraudulent misrepresentation that could endanger the Plaintiff and the public. Dental equipment
`
`in the practice as well as other property in the practice has been impacted by exposure to the
`
`Covid-l9 Virus.
`73. It is probable that COVID-I9 particles have been physically present at Plaintiffs
`
`premises described in the Policy during the Policy period.
`74. It is probable that COVID-l9 particles have been physically present on surfaces
`
`and items of property located at Plaintiffls premises described in the Policy during the Policy
`
`period.
`
`75. It is probable that airborne COVID- 19 particles have been physicaily present at
`
`PlaintifF s premises described in the Complaint during the Policy period.
`76. It is probable that airbome COVID-I9 particles have been physically present at
`
`PlaintifPs premises described in the Policy during the Policy period.
`77. Plaintiff has sustained direct physical loss and damage to items of property located
`
`at its premises and direct physical loss and damage to its premises described in the Policy as a
`
`result of the presence of COMD- i 9 particles and/or the Pandemic.
`78. Plaintiff submitted timely insurance claims to defendant.
`79. Any purported viral exclusion does not apply here because a legal proximate cause
`
`of the Plaintiff s losses was the civil authority orders issued by the State ofNew York and similar
`
`civil authority orders.
`80.
`
`Also, while the policy contains a virus exclusion - the policy does not exclude
`
`coverage for a national state of disaster like the current pandemic. The insurance industry knows
`how to exclude "pandemics and epidemics" and has done so in other contexts. See.
`httos://www.travelinsurance.comlbrochure/AllianzlAllianz Basic_FL 0216.pdf ("You aren't
`
`13 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`covered for any loss that results directly or indirectly from any ofthe following general exclusions.
`
`The following Events: an epidemic or pandemic[.]"). Here it did not.
`81. As drafter of the Policy of insurance, if MIDVALE had wished to exclude from
`
`coverage as "physical loss or damage" loss ofuse ofproperty that has not been physically altered,
`it could have used explicit language stating such a definition of
`
`physical loss of damage." It did not do so.
`82. The simple truth is that Defendant pre-determined its intent to deny coverage for
`
`any business intemrption claim related to COWD- I 9 pandemic and civil authority orders
`
`connected to the COVID-19 pandemic; which explains the quick and cursory denial of the claims
`
`timely submitted to defendant herein.
`83. A declaratory judgrnent determining that the coverage is provided under the Policy
`
`will prevent the Plaintifffrom being left without vital coverage acquired to ensure the survival of
`
`the business due to the shutdown caused by the Civil Authority Orden is necessary. As a result of
`
`these Orders, Plaintiffhas incurred, and continue to incur, among other things, a substantial loss
`
`ofbusiness income and additional expenses covered under the Policy.
`
`CAUSE OF ACT10N
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`84. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference into this cause of action each and
`
`every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph ofthis Complaint.
`85. Pursuant to NY CPLR $3001, the Supreme Court may render a Declaratory
`
`Judgment having the effect of a final judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the
`
`parties to ajusticiable controversy whether or not further reliefis or could be claimed. If the Court
`
`declines to render ajudgnent is shall state its grounds.
`86. An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the
`
`14 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`rights, duties, responsibilities and obligations of the parties under the Policy in that Plaintiff
`
`contends and, on information and beliell the Defendant disputes and denies that
`
`a. The Civil Authority Orders constitute a complete or partial prohibition
`ofaccess to Plaintiffs' Covered Properties;
`b. The prohibition of access by the Civil Authority Orders has specifically
`"prohibit[ed] access to the premises" in whole or in part as set forth in
`the Policy's Civil Authority provision;
`c. The Policy virus exclusion does not apply here;
`d. The Civil Authority Orders trigger coverage;
`
`C
`
`The Policy includes coverage for losses caused by thc Civil Authority
`Orders;
`f The Policy includes coverage for losses caused by the Coronavrrus;
`g. The Policy provides coverage to Plaintiffs for any current and future
`civil authority closures of businesses in Kings County and New York
`State due to physical loss or damage directly or indirectly from the
`Coronavirus tmder the Civil Authority coverage parameters;
`h. The Policy provides business income coverage in the event that
`Coronavirus has directly or indirectly caused a loss or damage at the
`insured premises or immediate area of the Covered Properties; and,
`i. Resolution ofthe duties, responsibilities and obligation ofthe parties is
`necessary as no adequate remedy at law exists and a declaration ofthe
`Court is needed to resolve the dispute and controversy.
`87. Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgement to determine whether the Civil Authority
`
`Orders prohibit access to the premises in whole or in part of Plaintiff s Covered Property as set
`
`lonh in the Policy's Civil Authoriry provision.
`88 Plaintiff further seeks a Declaratory Judgement to affirm that the Civil Authority
`
`Orders trigger coverage.
`89. Plaintiff further seeks a Declaratory Judgrnent to aflirm that the Policy provides
`
`coverage to Plaintiff for any current and future Civil Authori! closures of businesses in Kings
`
`County and New York State due to physical loss or damage from the Coronavirus and the policy
`
`15 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`provides business income coverage in the event that Coronavirus has caused a loss or damage at
`
`the Covered Propefi.
`90. Plaintiff does not seek any determination of whether the Coronavirus is physically
`
`in or at the Covered Property specifically, the amount ofdamages, or any other remedy other than
`
`declaratory relief.
`
`PRAYERFORRELTEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffherein prays as follows
`
`1) For a declaration that the Civil Authority Orders constitute a prohibition of
`access in whole or in part to PlainlifFs Covered Property.
`
`2) For a declaration that the prohibition ofaccess by the Civil Authority Orders
`"prohibits access to the premises" in whole or in part as stated in the Policy.
`
`3) For a declaratron that the Civil Authority Orders trigger coverage under the
`Policy.
`
`4) For a declaration that the Policy provides coverage to Plaintiff for any
`cunent, future and continued civil authority closures ofbusinesses in Kings
`County and New York State due to physical loss or damage directly or
`indirectly from the Coronavirus under the Civil Authority coverage
`parameters.
`
`5) For a declaration that the virus exclusion does not preclude coverage of
`Plaintiffs loss of business income or the physical loss or damage suffered
`at the Insured Property;
`
`6) For a declaration that the Policy provides business income coverage in the
`event that Coronavirus has directly or indirectly caused a loss or damage at
`the PlaintifFs Covered Property or the immediate area of the Plaintiff s
`Covered Property; and,
`
`7) For such other relief as the Court may deem proper
`
`TRIAL BY JURYIS DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury
`
`16 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`Dated:
`
`July
`
`3, 2020
`
`RespectfuHy
`
`sulimi
`
`d,
`
`J
`
`sq.
`
`,
`Randolp
`& LO
`UGLAS
`59 Maiden
`6
`Lane,
`New York,
`New
`ork
`7500
`566
`Phone:
`(212)
`7501
`566
`Fax:
`(212)
`rjanisadouglasandlondon.com
`
`P.C.
`
`ON.
`Floor
`10038
`
`17 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2020 12:58 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 511561/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2020
`
`Иr3θRⅣEγ sンτlR177icИ IIοⅣ
`
`ヽ ノ Ｓ 、 ノ
`
`S.TソヽTE()Fi卜IEWヽア
`く):R.K
`
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`RANIX)LPH D. JANIS, an attomey and counselor at law, duly admitted to practice in
`
`the Cou(s of the State of New York and associated with DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.,
`
`attorneys for Plaintiffs herein, affirms the following to be tme under penalties of pe{ury:
`I have read the foregoing COMPLI\INT and know the contents tlereof, and upon
`
`information and belief, I believe the mauers alleged therein to be true.
`
`The reason this Verification is made by deponent and not by Plaintiffis that Plaintiffresides
`
`in a county other than the one in which your deponent's office is maintained.
`The source of your deponent's information and the grounds of my belief are
`
`communications, papers, reports and investigations contained in my file.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`July 3,2020
`
`RANDO
`
`18 of 18
`
`