Second Master Consolidated Amended Complaint — In re Society Insurance COVID-19 MDL

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · No. 1:20-cv-05965 · Doc. 262 · 2021-08-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
EASTERN DIVISION 
IN RE: SOCIETY INSURANCE CO. 
COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 
PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION 
This Document Relates to All Cases 
MDL No. 2964 
Master Docket No. 20 C 5965 
Judge Edmond E. Chang 
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings 
MASTER CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Adam J. Levitt 
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor 
Chicago, Illinois  60602 
Telephone: 312-214-7900 
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com 
Timothy W. Burns 
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP 
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 
Madison, Wisconsin  53703 
Telephone: 608-286-2302 
tburns@bbblawllp.com 
Shannon M. McNulty 
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 
120 North LaSalle Street, #3100 
Chicago, Illinois  60602 
Telephone: 312-899-9090 
smm@cliffordlaw.com 
W. Mark Lanier
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North
Suite 100
Houston, Texas  77064
Telephone: 713-659-5200
WML@lanierlawfirm.com
Plaintiffs’ MDL Co-Lead Counsel and Counsel for  
the Class Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes 
Shelby S. Guilbert, Jr. 
MCGUIREWOODS LLP 
1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2100 
Atlanta, Georgia  30309 
Telephone: 404-443-5723  
sguilbert@mcguirewoods.com 
Plaintiffs’ MDL Co-Lead Counsel and Counsel for the Individual Plaintiffs 
Dated: August 27, 2021 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 1 of 74 PageID #:4384

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I.
PREAMBLE ....................................................................................................................... 1 
II.
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION .................................................... 2 
III.
THE PARTIES.................................................................................................................... 4 
IV.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 11 
V.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 12 
A.
Society’s Comprehensive Business Insurance Policies for Small
Businesses ............................................................................................................. 12 
B.
The Pandemic ........................................................................................................ 15 
C.
The Governmental Closure Orders ....................................................................... 17 
D.
The Impact of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders on Plaintiffs’ Business
Operations ............................................................................................................. 24 
E.
Society’s Response to the Pandemic and Denial of Requests for Insurance
Benefits ................................................................................................................. 26 
VI.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................. 29 
VII.
CLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................... 37 
VIII.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 53 
IX.
JURY DEMAND .............................................................................................................. 54 
X.
CLASS CLAIMS PRESERVED FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL .................................. 55 
XI.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................... 65 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 2 of 74 PageID #:4385

1 
I. 
PREAMBLE
Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 6 [Dkt. No. 139], the below Plaintiffs hereby file 
this Master Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Master Complaint”) against Defendant Society 
Insurance, Inc. As alleged herein, this Master Complaint includes: (1) claims brought by Plaintiffs 
on behalf of themselves and the proposed classes described below (the “Class Plaintiffs”); and 
(2) claims brought by Plaintiffs as individuals and not on behalf of any proposed class (the 
“Individual Plaintiffs”). For purposes of efficiency and to streamline discovery in this time-
sensitive matter, the Individual Plaintiffs listed herein are a subset of Individual Plaintiffs who 
have already filed individual actions and intend to proceed with their claims individually and not 
on behalf of any proposed class. The fact that a particular Plaintiff is not expressly listed as an 
Individual Plaintiff does not waive that Plaintiff’s right to proceed with its individual claims on a 
parallel track notwithstanding any class(es) which may be certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 
in the future. To the extent this Master Complaint reasserts allegations and claims dismissed by 
this Court’s February 22, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order [Dkt. No. 131], Plaintiffs include 
those allegations and claims solely to preserve them for appeal. Finally, Plaintiffs note that this 
Master Complaint is directly filed in  this Court and is  intended to serve as Class Plaintiffs’ 
complaint proceeding through trial. Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs believe that all claims 
should proceed before this Court for all purposes and all such parties consent to venue and personal 
jurisdiction in this Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, certain claims or issues for certain parties 
may, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and the case law thereunder, be matters for determination 
on remand by transferor courts. 
Plaintiffs Rising Dough, Inc.; Willy McCoys of Albertville LLC; Willy McCoys of  
Andover LLC; Willy McCoys of Chaska LLC; Willy McCoys of Shakopee LLC; Whiskey Jacks 
of Ramsey, LLC; Green Hills Grille LLC; Cash-McKeown Futures LLC; Valley Lodge Corp.; The 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 3 of 74 PageID #:4386

2 
05-15) (“Special Property Coverage Form”).
2.
Society markets itself as offering broad “best-in-class” coverage to businesses in
the hospitality industry, and insurance brokers selling policies to potential Society policyholders 
touted Society as offering broader coverage than its competitors. Indeed, unlike many policies that 
provide Business Income (also referred to as “business interruption”) coverage, Society’s Special 
Property Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused 
by viruses or communicable diseases. 
3.
Since March 2020, Plaintiffs’ ordinary business operations have been interrupted
by the spread of the novel coronavirus, the ensuing COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting public 
Bag Tavern, LLC; Crosstown Pub and Grill Inc.; The Barn Investment LLC; Ambrosia Indy LLC; 
Tolon LLC; JL Holdings Inc.; One Louder, LLC; Sunda Nashville, LLC; JPM Hospitality Group, 
LLC; and SAC Corp. (collectively, the “Class Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the other 
members of the below-defined nationwide and state classes (collectively, the “Class” or the 
“Classes”), and Plaintiffs Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC; McBrides Aurora Inc.; Homeslyce Is 
Where The Heart Is LLC; 108 Kinzie LLC; Sancerre Hospitality I LLC; 806 W Randolph LLC; 
and Niche Restaurant Group LLC (collectively, the “Individual Plaintiffs,” and, with the Class 
Plaintiffs, the “Plaintiffs”), bring this Master Consolidated Amended Complaint against Defendant 
Society Insurance (“Society Insurance” or “Society”). 
II. 
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. 
Plaintiffs are small business owners that operate restaurants, bars, and other 
establishments that rely on the ability to provide indoor service to customers. To protect their 
businesses in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their 
control, Plaintiffs purchased all-risk insurance policies from Society, including “Business Income” 
coverage, as set forth in Society’s Businessowner’s Special Property Coverage Form (Form TBP2 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 4 of 74 PageID #:4387

3 
health orders announced by state and local governments. These interruptions present an existential 
threat to these small businesses.  
4.
Despite Society’s express promise in its policies to cover the Plaintiffs’ Business
Income losses when they lose the use of their property for ordinary business operations due to 
conditions beyond their control, Society has not done so. Instead, Society looked at its potential 
exposure and made an internal decision, before coronavirus was widely detected in the United 
States, that it would refuse to pay any claim that it could link to the pandemic that public health 
officials feared was coming.  
5.
Society did not simply implement a corporate policy of issuing blanket denials to
Plaintiffs for any Business Income losses related to COVID-19—although it did do that, often 
issuing denial letters within hours of receiving policyholders’ claims without conducting a 
reasonable investigation based on all available information, as required under the law. Society 
affirmatively wrote to policyholders to discourage them from filing claims and enlisted its broker-
agents in a scheme to submit claims on behalf of policyholders—without policyholders’ 
knowledge or consent—that Society could rapidly deny. 
6.
In blatant breach of the insurance obligations that Society voluntarily undertook in
exchange for Plaintiffs’ premium payments, Society has denied Plaintiffs’ business interruption 
claims arising from COVID-19, in most cases prior to conducting any meaningful coverage 
investigation whatsoever.  
7.
Indeed, Society has, on a wide-scale basis with many if not all of its insureds,
refused to provide Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, Contamination or Sue and 
Labor coverage for losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant executive orders 
by state and local governments that have required the suspension of business. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 5 of 74 PageID #:4388

4 
8. 
As a result of Society’s wrongful denial of coverage, the Class Plaintiffs and 
Individual Plaintiffs file this Master Consolidated Amended Complaint for a declaratory judgment 
establishing that they are entitled to receive the benefit of the insurance coverage they purchased, 
for indemnification of the business income losses they have sustained, for breach of contract, and 
for bad faith claims handling under the laws of the jurisdictions in which the Plaintiffs operate. 
III. 
THE PARTIES
Class Plaintiffs 
9. 
Plaintiff Rising Dough, Inc. (“Rising Dough”) is a Wisconsin corporation with its 
principal place of business in Madison, Wisconsin. Rising Dough operates the restaurant Madison 
Sourdough in Madison, Wisconsin. Rising Dough has a Businessowners Policy from Society 
Insurance, Policy No. TRM54814711.  
10. 
Plaintiff Willy McCoys of Albertville LLC (“Willy McCoys Albertville”) is a 
Minnesota limited liability company with its principal place of business in Albertville, Minnesota. 
Willy McCoys Albertville operates a Willy McCoys restaurant in Albertville, Minnesota. Willy 
McCoys Albertville has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. 
BP19022033-0. 
11. 
Plaintiff Willy McCoys of Andover LLC (“Willy McCoys Andover”) is a 
Minnesota limited liability company with its principal place of business in Andover, Minnesota. 
Willy McCoys Andover operates a Willy McCoys restaurant in Andover, Minnesota. Willy 
McCoys Andover has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP19013654-
0. 
12. 
Plaintiff Willy McCoys of Chaska LLC (“Willy McCoys Chaska”) is a Minnesota 
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Chaska, Minnesota. Willy McCoys 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 6 of 74 PageID #:4389

5 
Chaska operates a Willy McCoys restaurant in Chaska, Minnesota. Willy McCoys Chaska has a 
Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP19022056-0. 
13.
Plaintiff Willy McCoys of Shakopee LLC (“Willy McCoys Shakopee”) is a
Minnesota limited liability company with its principal place of business in Shakopee, Minnesota. 
Willy McCoys Shakopee operates the restaurant McCoys Copper Pint in Shakopee, Minnesota. 
Willy McCoys Shakopee has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. 
BP19019803-0. 
14.
Plaintiff Whiskey Jacks of Ramsey, LLC (“Whiskey Jacks”) is a Minnesota limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Ramsey, Minnesota. Whiskey Jacks 
operates a Willy McCoys restaurant in Ramsey, Minnesota. Whiskey Jacks has a Businessowners 
Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP19022048-0. 
15.
Plaintiff Green Hills Grille, LLC (“Green Hills Grille”) is a Tennessee limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. Green Hills Grille 
operates the restaurant Green Hills Grille in Nashville Tennessee. Green Hills Grille has a 
Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP19006528-0. 
16.
Plaintiff Cash-McKeown Futures LLC (“Cash-McKeown”) is a Tennessee limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee. Cash-McKeown 
operates the restaurant Mere Bulles in Brentwood Tennessee. Cash-McKeown has a 
Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP16039015-3 
17.
Plaintiff Valley Lodge Corp. (“Valley Lodge”) is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Glenview, Illinois. Valley Lodge operates the restaurant The Valley 
Lodge in Glenview, Illinois. Valley Lodge has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, 
Policy No. BP19017098-0.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 7 of 74 PageID #:4390

6 
18. 
Plaintiff The Bag Tavern, LLC (“Bag Tavern”) is an Illinois limited liability 
company with its principal place of business in Wilmette, Illinois. Bag Tavern operates the 
restaurant The Valley Lodge Tavern in Wilmette, Illinois. Bag Tavern has a Businessowners 
Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP19017038-0. 
19. 
Plaintiff Crosstown Pub and Grill Inc. (“Crosstown”) is an Illinois corporation with 
its principal place of business in Naperville, Illinois. Crosstown operates the restaurant Crosstown 
Pub & Grill Naperville in Naperville, Illinois. Crosstown has a Businessowners Policy from 
Society Insurance, Policy No. BP18030334-1, which provides coverage for Crosstown Pub & Grill 
Naperville and also for Crosstown Pub & Grill in Batavia. 
20. 
Plaintiff The Barn Investment LLC (“The Barn”) is an Illinois limited liability 
company with its principal place of business in Evanston, Illinois. The Barn operates the restaurant 
The Barn Steakhouse in Evanston, Illinois. The Barn has a Businessowners Policy from Society 
Insurance, Policy No. BP16023488-3. 
21. 
Plaintiff Ambrosia Indy LLC  (“Ambrosia”) is an Indiana limited liability company 
with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. Ambrosia operates the restaurant 
Ambrosia in Indianapolis, Indiana. Ambrosia has a Businessowners Policy from Society 
Insurance, Policy No. BP18044498. 
22. 
Plaintiff Tolon LLC (“Tolon”) is an Indiana limited liability company with its 
principal place of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Tolon operates the restaurant Tolon in Fort 
Wayne, Indiana. Tolon has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. 
BP18005470-2. 
23. 
Plaintiff JL Holdings Inc. (“JL Holdings”) is an Iowa corporation with its principal 
place of business in Cascade, Iowa. JL Holdings operates the restaurant Kalmes Club 528 in 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 8 of 74 PageID #:4391

7 
Cascade, Iowa. JL Holdings has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. ROP 
541338-8. 
24.
Plaintiff One Louder, LLC (“One Louder”) is an Iowa limited liability company,
with its principal place of business in Iowa City, Iowa. One Louder operates the restaurant Micky’s 
Irish Pub in Iowa City, Iowa. One Louder has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, 
Policy No. BP17013872-2. 
25.
Plaintiff Sunda Nashville, LLC (“Sunda Nashville”) is a Tennessee limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. Sunda Nashville operates 
the restaurant Sunda in Nashville, Tennessee. Sunda Nashville is a named insured on a 
Businessowners Policy issued by Society Insurance to Rockit Ranch Productions, Inc., Policy No. 
BP18032886-1. 
26.
Plaintiff JPM Hospitality Group, LLC (“JPM”) is a Wisconsin limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Racine, Wisconsin. JPM operates the restaurant 
Reefpoint Brew House in Racine, Wisconsin. JPM has a Businessowners Policy from Society 
Insurance, Policy No. BP18040323-1. 
27.
Plaintiff SAC Corp. (“SAC”) is a is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place
of business in Hartford, Wisconsin. SAC operates the restaurant MJ Stevens in Hartford, 
Wisconsin. SAC has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP17020472-
2. 
Individual Plaintiffs 
28.
Plaintiff Big Onion Tavern Group LLC (“Big Onion”) is an Illinois limited liability
company, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Big Onion’s sole member is Erik 
Baylis, a citizen of Illinois. Big Onion operates the following restaurants in Chicago: Fatpour Tap 
Works – Wicker Park, Fatpour Tap Works – McCormick Place, Hopsmith, Woodie’s Flat, The 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 9 of 74 PageID #:4392

8 
a.
Illinois citizens Clay Hamilton, Josh Iachelli, Scott Behrens, Greg Boyle,
Mark Posner, Edward McLoughlin, Troy Schira, Steven Troy Schira, Glenn
Hughes, Lance Lauderdale;
b. Oregon citizens Curt Bennett, Jason Miller, Stephen Harper, Kenneth
MacDonald, Linda MacDonald;
c.
Colorado citizens Jarka Durba and Stephen Kern;
d. The Jacobs Family Trust. The trustee of The Jacobs Family Trust is Jay
Jacobs, a citizen of Montana;
e.
North Carolina citizen Michael Kutcher;
f.
Washington citizen Benjamin Wallace;
g. Stem Ltd Partnership. The partners of Stem Ltd Partnership are Florida citizen
Ed McLoughlin and Illinois citizens Tim McLoughlin and Megan Horwath;
and
Irish Oak, Brunch, and Centre Street Kitchen. Big Onion has a Businessowners Policy from 
Society Insurance, Policy No. BP18003904-1, which covered losses for occurrences at each of Big 
Onion’s restaurants. 
29. 
Plaintiff McBrides Aurora Inc. (“McBrides Aurora”) is an Illinois corporation with 
its principal place of business in Illinois. McBrides Aurora operates the pub McBride’s North in 
Aurora, Illinois. McBrides Aurora has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy 
No. TRM 591971-4. 
30. 
Plaintiff Homeslyce Is Where the Heart Is LLC (“Homeslyce”) is an Illinois limited 
liability company. The members of Homeslyce are: 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 10 of 74 PageID #:4393

9 
h. In Your Eye LLC. The members of In Your Eye LLC are Illinois citizens Tim
Callahan, Peter Forker, Fred Gonzalez, Anita Rambhajan, Ernest Brown,
Todd Baraniak, Aaron Baum, Maureen Callahan, and Glen Keefer.
Homeslyce operates Homeslice Restaurant in Chicago. Homeslyce has a Businessowners Policy 
from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP17001670. 
31.
Plaintiff 108 Kinzie, LLC (“108 Kinzie”) is an Illinois limited liability company.
The members of 108 Kinzie are: 
a.
Illinois citizens Derrel McDavid, William McDavid, Linda Matthew, Richard
Goodman, Lilly Goodman, Daniel Goodman, Jordan Goodman, Steve
Sandler, and John Mays;
b. New York citizens Christine Maguire, David Vargas, Mark Goldsmith, Robert
Levine, John Pizzuto, Todd Reale, Joseph Schueller, George Hindy, James
Maguire, Steve Maguire, and Tom Maguire;
c.
New Jersey citizen Todd Reale;
d. Florida citizens Robert Reale and Erni Valez;
e.
Mercan Corporation, a New York corporation with its principal place of
business in New York;
f.
Third Stone Partners, a limited liability company. The sole member of Third
Stone Partners is Dave Karrow, a citizen of Illinois;
g. JT & C, LLC, a limited liability company. The sole member of JT & C, LLC
is Jack Cayre, a citizen of New York;
h. Skor LLC, a limited liability company. The sole member of Skor LLC is Scott
Skorobohaty, a citizen of New York;
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 11 of 74 PageID #:4394

10 
i.
The Michael Andrew Maguire Irrevocable Trust. The trustee of The Michael
Andrew Maguire Irrevocable Trust is Tom Maguire Sr., a citizen of New
York;
j.
The Thomas J. Maguire Jr. Irrevocable Trust. The trustee of the Thomas J.
Maguire Jr. Irrevocable Trust is Tom Maguire Sr., a citizen of New York; and
k. JLC Merc LLC, a limited liability company. The sole member of JLC Merc
LLC is John Manning, a citizen of New York.
108 Kinzie operates the restaurant Mercadito in Chicago’s River North neighborhood. 108 
Kinzie has a Businessowners Policy from Society Insurance, Policy No. BP16019733-3. 
32.
Plaintiff 806 W Randolph LLC (“806 W Randolph”) is an Illinois limited liability
company. The members of 806 W Randolph LLC are Illinois citizens Ben Pritzker, Ben Lurie, 
Matt Eisler, Kevin Heisner, and Nick Floyd. 806 W Randolph operates the bar and restaurant Lone 
Wolf in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood. 806 W Randolph has a Businessowners Policy from 
Society Insurance, Policy No. TRM 587111-6. 
33.
Plaintiff Sancerre Hospitality I LLC (“Sancerre Hospitality”) is an Illinois limited
liability company. The members of Sancerre Hospitality are Illinois citizens Frank Callero, Kara 
Callero, and Steven Zaleski. Sancerre Hospitality operates the restaurant BLVD in Chicago’s West 
Loop neighborhood. Sancerre Hospitality has a Businessowners Policy with Society Insurance, 
Policy No. BP17018107. 
34.
Plaintiff Niche Restaurant Group LLC (“Niche”) is an Illinois limited liability
company. The sole member of Niche is Andrea Redmond, a citizen of Illinois. Niche operates the 
bar and restaurant Niche in Geneva, Illinois. Niche has a Businessowners Policy with Society 
Insurance, Policy No. ROP 514325. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 12 of 74 PageID #:4395

11 
35.
The Individual Plaintiffs’ claims share common factual issues with the claims
asserted by the other Individual Plaintiffs who are pursuing individual claims in this multi-district 
litigation, including but not limited to all of the Individual Plaintiffs identified in Case No. 1:30-
cv-02005, Dkt. 29.
Defendant 
36.
Society is a mutual insurance company organized under the laws of the State of
Wisconsin, with its principal place of business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. It is authorized to write, 
sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and business income coverage. At all times 
material hereto, Society conducted and transacted business through the selling and issuing of 
insurance policies within, among other states, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Tennessee, and Wisconsin, including, but not limited to, selling and issuing property coverage to 
Plaintiffs. 
IV.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
37.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Class Plaintiffs’ claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the Class Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 23 (a) on behalf of a putative class that consists of at least 100 members, (b) the amount 
in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and (c) no relevant exceptions 
apply to this claim.  
38.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in 
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 
39.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the claims brought by Plaintiffs pursuant
to the Illinois “long arm statute,” 735 ILCS 5/2-209, because Society Insurance has submitted to 
jurisdiction in this state by: (a) transacting business in Illinois; (b) contracting to insure a person, 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 13 of 74 PageID #:4396

12 
A.
Society’s Comprehensive Business Insurance Policies for Small Businesses
41.
Society advertises itself as a specialty insurer for small business in a few industries:
Society Insurance doesn’t try to be all things for every business. But for a few 
choice industries, we’re just that. 
We specialize in select business niches, focusing on the small details that make the 
biggest difference. No business insurance company matches our extensive 
knowledge for protecting restaurants, bars, grocery stores, convenience stores, 
medical clinics and artisan contractors. 
Over the years, we’ve sat down with real owners like you to make sure our 
coverage meets your unique challenges. The tools, tips and resources we provide 
allow you to proactively strengthen your business and prevent accidents from 
happening. 
And if disaster strikes, you can rest easy knowing your Society Insurance policy 
has you covered. 
The way we do business has earned Society the long-standing endorsements of 
some of the Midwest’s leading trade associations. It’s a nod to how we handle the 
intricacies of these industries and always look ahead to meet emerging 
business needs. 
Your business is your livelihood, and it’s our job to do all we can to help you protect 
it. By choosing Society, you’re not only getting one of the most comprehensive 
property or risk located within Illinois at the time of contracting; and (c) making a contract 
substantially connected with Illinois. See 735 ILCS 5/2-209(1), (4), (7). In addition, Society 
Insurance exercises substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with Illinois by doing business 
in Illinois, serving insureds in Illinois, and seeking additional business in Illinois. 
40. 
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant resides 
in this district, a substantial portion of the acts and conduct giving rise to the claims occurred 
within the District, and because the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred all 
cases filed in federal court against Society alleging business income losses resulting from COVID-
19 to this Court for pre-trial purposes.  
V. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 14 of 74 PageID #:4397

13 
plans for your business, but a partner dedicated to your company’s continued 
success.1 
42.
In many parts of the world, property insurance is sold on a specific peril basis. Such
policies cover a risk of loss if that risk of loss is specifically listed (e.g., hurricane, earthquake, 
H1N1, etc.). Most property policies sold in the United States, however, including those sold by 
Society, are all-risk policies, meaning that the policies cover all risks of loss except for risks that 
are expressly and specifically excluded. In the Special Property Coverage Form provided to 
Plaintiffs, under the heading “Covered Causes of Loss,” Society agreed to “pay for direct physical 
loss or damage to Covered Property” “unless the loss is excluded or limited by” the Special 
Property Coverage Form.  
43.
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society did not exclude or limit coverage
for losses from viruses, infectious or communicable diseases, pandemics, or public health 
countermeasures that might be used to combat the same. 
44.
Thus, losses due to COVID-19 are a Covered Cause of Loss under the Society
policies with the Special Property Coverage Form.  
45.
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society agreed to pay for its insureds’
actual loss of Business Income sustained due to the necessary suspension of its operations during 
the “period of restoration” caused by direct physical loss or damage. A “partial slowdown or 
complete cessation” of business activities at the Covered Property is a “suspension” under the 
policy, for which Society agreed to pay for loss of Business Income during the “period of 
restoration” “that occurs within 12 consecutive months after the date of direct physical loss or 
damage.”  
1 See https://www.societyinsurance.com/about_us.aspx (emphasis added) (last visited March 28, 2021). 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 15 of 74 PageID #:4398

14 
46.
“Business Income” means net income (or loss) before tax that Plaintiffs would have
earned “if no physical loss or damage had occurred.”  
47.
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society also agreed to pay necessary Extra
Expense that its insureds incur during the “period of restoration” that the insureds would not have 
incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property. 
48.
“Extra Expense” means expenses “to avoid or minimize the suspension of business
and to continue ‘operations,’” and to repair or replace property.  
49.
Society also agreed to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income” that Plaintiffs
sustain “and any Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to” the 
Covered Property when a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property other than the 
Covered Property and the civil authority prohibits access to the property and its surrounding area 
and takes such action “in response to dangerous physical conditions.”  
50.
Society’s Special Property Coverage Form provides “Contamination” coverage that
pays for the actual loss of Business Income and Extra Expense caused by “‘Contamination’ that 
results in an action by a public health or other governmental authority that prohibits access to the 
described premises or production of your product.” The Special Property Coverage Form broadly 
defines a covered loss due to “Contamination” as occurring in a variety of circumstances, including 
the following: (a) “Contamination” that results in an action by a public health or other 
governmental authority that prohibits access to the described premises or production of your 
product; (b) a “Contamination threat”, or (c) “publicity” resulting from the discovery or suspicion 
of “Contamination.” The Special Property Coverage Form defines “Contamination” as “a defect, 
deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in your products, merchandise or premises.”  
51.
Society’s Special Property Coverage Form, under a section entitled “Duties in the
Event of Loss or Damage” mandates that Society’s insured “must see that the following are done 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 16 of 74 PageID #:4399

15 
B.
The Pandemic
54.
In January 2020, early media reports documented an outbreak of a novel strain of
coronavirus—COVID-19—in Wuhan, China. By late January, it was generally understood in the 
scientific and public health communities that COVID-19 was spreading through human-to-human 
transmission and could be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. 
55.
On January 30, 2020, reports of the spread of COVID-19 outside China prompted
the World Health Organization to declare the COVID-19 outbreak a “Public Health Emergency of 
International Concern.”  
56.
On March 11, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global health
pandemic based on existing and projected infection and death rates and concerns about the speed 
of transmission and ultimate reach of this virus.  
in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property . . . [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the 
Covered Property from further damage and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect 
the Covered Property, for consideration in the settlement of the claim.” This type of coverage has 
historically been known as “sue and labor” coverage or a “sue and labor” provision, and property 
policies have long provided coverage for these types of expenses. 
52. 
Plaintiffs each purchased a comprehensive, all-risk business insurance policy that 
conforms to the conventions described in Paragraphs 42 to 51 above. The Businessowners Special 
Property Coverage Form that is part of these policies includes identical Business Income, Civil 
Authority, Contamination, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor. Plaintiffs have each performed all 
of their obligations under the policy, including the payment of premiums. 
53. 
As explained below, losses caused by COVID-19 and the related orders issued by 
state and local governments triggered the Business Income and Extra Expense, Civil Authority, 
Contamination, and Sue and Labor provisions of these Society policies. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 17 of 74 PageID #:4400

16 
61.
Masking and distancing are ways to moderate group size risk. Larger group sizes
are riskier, particularly when activities make masking impossible, such as eating or drinking. 
57. 
Public health officials have recognized for decades that non-pharmaceutical 
interventions (NPIs) can slow and stop the transmission of certain diseases. Among these are 
screening and testing of potentially infected persons; contact tracing and quarantining infected 
persons; personal protection and prevention; and social distancing. Social distancing is the 
maintenance of physical space between people. Social distancing can be limited—e.g., reducing 
certain types of conduct or activities like hand-shaking—or large-scale—e.g., restricting the 
movements of the total population. 
58. 
By mid-March 2020, large-scale social distancing measures were being 
implemented by state and local governments across the United States, largely through executive 
orders (referred to below as “Closure Orders”) issued by governors, health departments, and 
mayors.  
59. 
Infected persons, whether they are or are not symptomatic, release infectious viral 
particles when breathing, talking, sneezing, and coughing. These particles may be in small 
respiratory droplets that remain suspended in the air or in larger droplets that may land on surfaces; 
regardless the infectious particles may persist for hours or days and present infection risks. 
Developing science has revealed that the risk of surface transmission exists, but that the greatest 
risks are in close contact and airborne transmission where people are indoors, in close proximity, 
and without masks covering their mouths and noses.  
60. 
The risks of transmission rise dramatically as the prevalence of the virus in the 
community rises. In a population with significant infection rates, the statistical risk of one infected 
person passing through a location increases significantly with a relatively small rise in attendance 
or traffic. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 18 of 74 PageID #:4401

17 
Complicating the control of the virus is the simple fact that one infected person, in particular 
circumstances, can infect many people.  
C.
The Governmental Closure Orders
62.
The presence of COVID-19 has caused state and local governments to issue Closure
Orders requiring the suspension of business at a wide range of establishments, including Plaintiffs’ 
businesses. 
The Colorado Closure Orders 
63.
Authorities in Colorado have issued several Closure Orders with a variety of
restrictions impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including the 
following: 
64.
On March 19, 2020, the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
(“CDPHE”) issued Public Health Order 20-22, which closed restaurants and bars, and closed or 
restricted other businesses. 
65.
On August 21, 2020, the CDPHE issued Public Health Order 20-28, which
established a phased reopening plan for regions of the state but maintained closures or restrictions 
of many businesses. Restaurants and bars were permitted to reopen subject to CDPHE guidance, 
which required six-feet spacing of tables, limited table sizes to eight diners, and capacity limited 
to 50% of normal capacity. 
66.
On October 27, 2020, the CDPHE issued Public Health Order 20-35, which
maintained restrictions on restaurants and bars, including six-feet spacing of tables, limited table 
sizes to ten diners, and capacity limited to 50% of normal capacity, as well as restricting other 
businesses. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 19 of 74 PageID #:4402

18 
The Illinois Closure Orders 
68.
Authorities in Illinois have issued several Closure Orders with a variety of
restrictions impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including the 
following: 
69.
Effective March 16, 2020, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued Executive Order
2020-07 (COVID-19 Executive Order No. 5), which closed restaurants and bars for onsite 
consumption, and which closed or restricted other businesses.  
70.
On March 20, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-10 (COVID-
19 Executive Order No. 8), which kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and 
which continued the closure or restriction of other businesses.  
71.
On April 1, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-18 (COVID-19
Executive Order No. 16), which kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and 
which continued the closure or restriction of other businesses. 
72.
On April 30, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-32 (COVID-19
Executive Order No. 30), which kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and 
which continued the closure or restriction of other businesses. 
73.
On May 29, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-38 (COVID-19
Executive No. 36), which kept restaurants and bars closed for indoor onsite consumption, 
permitted outdoor onsite consumption with COVID-19 protocols, and continued the closure or 
restriction of other businesses. 
67. 
On March 23, 2021, the CDPHE issued Public Health Order 20-36, which 
maintained restrictions on restaurants and bars, including six-feet spacing of tables and limited 
table sizes to ten diners, as well as restricting other businesses. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 20 of 74 PageID #:4403

19 
The Indiana Closure Orders 
75.
Authorities in Indiana have issued several Closure Orders with a variety of
restrictions impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including the 
following: 
76.
Effective March 16, 2020, Indiana Governor Eric J. Holcomb issued Executive
Order 20-04, which closed restaurants and bars for onsite consumption, and which closed or 
restricted other businesses. 
77.
On March 31, 2020, Governor Holcomb issued Executive Order 20-14, which kept
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. The Executive Order also clarified that the ban on onsite consumption extends 
to patios, other outdoor seating, and parking lots.  
78.
On April 6, 2020, Governor Holcomb issued Executive Order 20-18, which kept
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses.  
79.
On April 20, 2020, Governor Holcomb issued Executive Order 20-22, which kept
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. 
80.
On May 1, 2020, Governor Holcomb issued Executive Order 20-26, which
established staged reopening of businesses. Restaurants were capacity-limited to 50% of seating 
74. 
One June 26, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-43 (COVID-
19 Executive Order No. 41), which established a phased reopening plan for regions of the state. 
Restaurants and bars were permitted to reopen subject to Department of Commerce and Economic 
Opportunity (“DCEO”) guidance, which required six-feet spacing of tables, limited table sizes to 
ten diners, and capacity-limited standing areas to 25% of normal capacity.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 21 of 74 PageID #:4404

20 
The Iowa Closure Orders 
81.
Authorities in Iowa have issued several Closure Orders with a variety of restrictions
impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including the following: 
82.
Effective March 17, 2020, Iowa Governor Kimberly K. Reynolds issued a
Proclamation of Disaster Emergency (“Proclamation”), which closed restaurants and bars for 
onsite consumption, and which closed or restricted other businesses. 
83.
On March 26, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued a Proclamation that kept restaurants
and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction of other 
businesses. 
84.
On April 2, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued a Proclamation that kept restaurants
and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction of other 
businesses. 
85.
On April 27, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued a Proclamation that began to reopen
some businesses and establishments subject to COVID-19 protocols, in counties with relatively 
smaller population sizes, but not including, for example, Black Hawk, Johnson, Linn, Polk, Scott, 
or Woodbury Counties. In counties where restaurants were permitted to reopen for onsite 
consumption, restaurants were capacity-limited for indoor and outdoor spaces to 50% of normal 
operating capacity; table sizes were limited to six diners; buffets, salad bars and other self-service 
food or beverage stations were prohibited; and other COVID-19 protocols were required. Bars 
were kept closed for onsite consumption statewide.  
capacity; table sizes were limited to six diners; salad bars and other self-service food or beverage 
stations were prohibited; bar areas were kept closed; live music was banned; and other COVID-19 
protocols were required. Bars were kept closed for onsite consumption.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 22 of 74 PageID #:4405

21 
The Minnesota Closure Orders 
87.
Authorities in Minnesota have issued several Closure orders with a variety of
restrictions impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including: 
88.
Effective March 17, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Emergency
Executive Order 20-04, which closed restaurants and bars for onsite consumption, and which 
closed or restricted other businesses. 
89.
On March 25, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-18,
which kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure 
or restriction of other businesses. 
90.
On April 8, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-33, which
kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or 
restriction of other businesses. 
91.
On April 30, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-48,
which kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure 
or restriction of other businesses. 
92.
On May 13, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order No. 20-56,
which kept restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure 
or restriction of other businesses. Emergency Executive Order No. 20-56 also directed the 
86. 
On May 13, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued a Proclamation that began to reopen 
some businesses statewide subject to COVID-19 protocols. Restaurants not already allowed to do 
so were permitted to reopen for onsite consumption; restaurants were capacity-limited for indoor 
and outdoor spaces to 50% of normal operating capacity; table sizes were limited to six diners; 
buffets, salad bars and other self-service food or beverage stations were prohibited; and other 
COVID-19 protocols were required. Bars were kept closed for onsite consumption statewide.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 23 of 74 PageID #:4406

22 
Commissioners of Health, Employment and Economic Development, and Labor and Industry to 
develop a phased plan to reopen bars, restaurants, and other businesses. 
93.
On May 27, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order No. 20-63,
which kept restaurants and bars closed for indoor onsite consumption, and permitted outdoor onsite 
consumption with COVID-19 protocols.  
94.
On June 5, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order No. 20-74,
which allowed restaurants and bars to resume capacity-limited indoor dining, with COVID-19 
protocols. Emergency Executive Order No. 20-74 closed 50% of the capacity of a restaurant or 
bar, and capped occupancy in a single self-contained space at 250 people. Emergency Executive 
Order No. 20-74 also required six-feet spacing between outdoor tables, and capped outdoor 
occupancy at 250 people.  
The Nashville and Tennessee Closure Orders 
95.
Authorities in Tennessee have issued several Closure Orders with a variety of
restrictions impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including the 
following: 
96.
Effective March 20, 2002, the Nashville Metro Public Health Department issued
Amended and Restated Order 1, which closed restaurants from onsite consumption, and which 
closed all bars.  
97.
Effective March 23, 2020, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee issued Executive Order
No. 17, which closed restaurants and bars for onsite consumption, and which closed or restricted 
other businesses. Executive Order 17 found that “restaurants have been uniquely damaged by the 
COVID-19 outbreak.” 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 24 of 74 PageID #:4407

23 
The Wisconsin Closure Orders 
101.
Authorities in Wisconsin have issued several Closure Orders with a variety of
restrictions impacting the business activities of Plaintiffs within their jurisdiction, including the 
following: 
102.
On March 17, 2020, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers issued Emergency Order 5,
which closed restaurants and restaurants for onsite consumption, and which closed or restricted 
other businesses. 
103.
On March 20, 2020, Governor Evers issued Emergency Order 8, which kept
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. 
104.
On March 24, 2020, Governor Evers issued Emergency Order 12, which kept
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. 
98. 
On March 30, 2020, Governor Lee issued Executive Order No. 21, which kept 
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. 
99. 
On April 13, 2020, Governor Lee issued Executive Order No. 27, which kept 
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. 
100. 
On April 24, 2020, Governor Lee issued Executive Order No. 29, which kept 
limited service restaurants (i.e., establishments where revenue from the sale of prepared food is 
50% or less of total revenue) and bars closed for onsite consumption. Other restaurants were 
allowed to reopen, subject to COVID-19 measures. Restaurants subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Nashville Metro Public Health Department remained closed for onsite consumption.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 25 of 74 PageID #:4408

24 
Closure Order Modifications 
106.
The Closure Orders confirmed the presence of COVID-19 in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and were issued due to the presence of COVID-19. As 
Closure Orders were issued, Plaintiffs closed, closed for onsite consumption, closed for indoor 
consumption, operated in capacity-limited configurations, operated with six-feet spacing 
requirements, and otherwise experienced business interruption as a result of COVID-19 and the 
Closure Orders. 
107.
Civil authorities have modified the Closure Orders after the time periods discussed
above, e.g., by reopening businesses in phases, reclosing businesses, lifting and reimposing 
capacity limits, and mandating early closing times. All Plaintiffs have been impacted by these 
Closure Orders, many for more than a year, with the prospect for ongoing impact. Plaintiffs are 
still operating under significant restrictions, including restrictions on indoor seated dining, limiting 
seating capacity levels and requiring physical distancing between patrons. 
D.
The Impact of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders on Plaintiffs’ Business Operations
108.
Plaintiffs’ businesses rely on the ability to serve customers indoors. Regardless of
whether they operate restaurants, bars, cafes, theaters, or other businesses, Plaintiffs are patronized 
or their ability to provide services indoors in a communal space.  
109.
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable orders of state and local authorities.
Compliance with those orders and the presence of the virus in the community has caused direct 
physical loss of Plaintiffs’ insured property, in that the businesses and their real property, 
floorspace, indoor environment, equipment, furnishings, and other business personal property have 
105. 
On April 16, 2020, Governor Evers issued Emergency Order 28, which kept 
restaurants and bars closed for onsite consumption, and which continued the closure or restriction 
of other businesses. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 26 of 74 PageID #:4409

25 
111.
The presence of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders referenced in Paragraphs 62 to
107, above, caused “direct physical loss of or damage to” each “Covered Property” under the 
Plaintiffs’ policies, and the other Class members’ policies, by denying use of and damaging the 
been made unavailable, inoperable, useless, and/or uninhabitable; and the functionality of the 
property has been severely reduced when not completely or nearly eliminated. These physical 
losses have resulted in corresponding losses of business income.  
110.
Since March 2020, Plaintiffs have adapted to conform to the restrictions set forth
in the Closure Orders and compensate for their physical loss of property as follows: 
a.
Significant Changes to Business Model: Plaintiffs have sold meal kits and
groceries; created to-go menus, which are simpler, smaller versions of their regular menus; added 
delivery service options and joined several online platforms to try to build as much to-go business 
as possible. Plaintiffs have also purchased all of the additional supplies necessary to make to-go 
orders safely transportable and appealing including plastic and foil containers in many sizes, 
souffle cups, bags, and disposable utensils. 
b. Physical Alterations to Insured Premises: Plaintiffs have changed the layout of
their dining rooms, bars, reception areas, and outdoor spaces; removed furniture and spaced tables 
to distance diners; installed sanitizing stations; installed signage throughout the restaurants to 
advise patrons to wear masks when using the restrooms and observe distancing requirements.  
c.
Supplies Needed for Safe In-person Dining: Plaintiffs have purchased many
supplies in large quantities to comply with governmental orders: disposable gloves and face masks 
for staff; infrared thermometers to scan employees upon arrival to work; printed, disposable 
menus; bags for silverware; more expensive and powerful sanitizers; masks for patrons who do 
not bring their own. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 27 of 74 PageID #:4410

26 
Covered Property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of 
restoration.  
112.
As a result of the presence of COVID-19 and the Closure Orders, Plaintiffs and the
other Class members lost Business Income and incurred Extra Expense.  
E.
Society’s Response to the Pandemic and Denial of Requests for Insurance Benefits
113.
On March 16, 2020, before many of the Plaintiffs had noticed their claims, Rick
Parks, Society’s CEO, circulated a memorandum to its “agency partners,” acknowledging that 
states, such as Illinois, had “taken steps to limit operations of certain businesses,” but prospectively 
concluding that Society’s policies would likely not provide coverage for losses due to a 
“governmental imposed shutdown due to COVID-19 (coronavirus).” A copy of that memorandum 
is attached here as Exhibit A. 
114.
On information and belief, Society went on, in the following weeks and months, to
deny every claim for business income losses connected to coronavirus and government Closure 
Orders.  
115.
To the extent Society has provided any reason to policyholders for its categorical
assertion that such losses are not covered, it appears to be based on the assertion that the “actual 
or alleged presence of the coronavirus,” which prevented policyholders from engaging in ordinary 
business operations, does not constitute “direct physical loss.” See March 23 Letter attached here 
as Exhibit B. 
116.
Society’s conclusory statement that the actual or alleged presence of a substance
like COVID-19 does not result in “direct physical” is contrary to the law. For example, Illinois 
courts have consistently held that the presence of a dangerous substance in a property constitutes 
“physical loss or damage.” See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 211 v. Int’l Ins. Co., 
720 N.E.2d 622, 625–26 (Ill. Ct. App. 1999), as modified on denial of reh’g (Dec. 3, 1999).  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 28 of 74 PageID #:4411

27 
2 Whether these purported “virus exclusions” were legitimately promulgated and can properly be interpreted 
to deny coverage for pandemics and related public health countermeasures is a contested issue in numerous 
courts at this time. 
117. 
If Society had wanted to exclude pandemic-related losses under Plaintiffs’ 
policies—as some insurers have attempted to do in other policies—it easily could have done so 
with a clear exclusion. Instead, Society waited until after it collected Plaintiffs’ premiums, and 
after a pandemic and the resulting Business Interruption Orders caused catastrophic business losses 
to Plaintiffs, to limit its exposure by imposing an erroneous interpretation of its policies on 
policyholders: that the presence of the coronavirus is not “physical loss” and, therefore, is not a 
covered cause of loss under its policies.  
118. 
The fact that the insurance industry has created specific exclusions for virus-related 
losses under similar commercial property policies undermines Society’s assertion that the presence 
of a virus, like the coronavirus, does not cause “physical loss or damage” to property. If a virus 
could never result in a “physical loss” to property, there would be no need for such an exclusion.2  
119. 
Without any actual policy language to rely upon, Society’s CEO, Rick Parks, sent 
a memo to all Society policyholders entitled, “A Message From our CEO on Pandemic Crisis.” A 
copy of that memo, dated March 27, 2020 is attached here as Exhibit C. In the memo, Parks 
knowingly misrepresented the coverages available under Society policies by citing pandemic event 
exclusions that do not exist in Society’s policies. As Parks put it: “Insurance has always identified 
and excluded coverage for loss events that are so large, or are so unpredictable, that they outstrip 
the capacity of the industry to fund losses, or even price the exposure accurately. Exclusion for 
acts of war, nuclear incidents and flood are part of insurance policies for these reasons. These are 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 29 of 74 PageID #:4412

28 
the same reasons that coverages for pandemic events are excluded.” (emphasis added). But there 
are no such exclusions for pandemic events in Society’s policies.  
120.
Upon information and belief, Society sent this memo in furtherance of a corporate
strategy designed to intentionally mislead Society’s policyholders about the relevant coverage 
terms in their policies and discourage policyholders from filing claims for losses arising from 
COVID-19 business interruption orders. 
121.
Moreover, some Plaintiffs had claims submitted by Society’s insurance agents—
who were not working on behalf of Plaintiffs—without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, simply 
so that Society could issue prospective denials. 
122.
Each of the named Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of loss and received a cursory
denial letter that reflected no investigation of the insured’s facts or claims. 
123.
Parks’ March 27, 2020 memo also made clear that Society was not making
coverage determinations based on the facts of the claim and the language of the policies that 
Society issued, but, rather, based upon the financial impact that the pandemic would have upon 
the insurance industry if Society covered losses as required by the language of its own policies. 
Park asserted in his memo: “The insurance industry combined does not have enough assets to fund 
these losses and still be able to meet past and future obligations.” This assertion ignores the fact 
that Society has reported to the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner that it maintains substantial 
reinsurance to protect itself against the paying large numbers of claims in any particular year. 
124.
Notwithstanding its strong financial position and its access to global reinsurance
markets and other sources of capital, in multiple communications with Society policyholders, 
Society has stated that instead of providing coverage in accordance with the terms of the policies 
it issued, it thinks that a “government bailout” should occur to assist Society’s policyholders. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 30 of 74 PageID #:4413

29 
Simply put, Society has put its own financial interests ahead of the interests of its policyholders 
(and taxpayers). 
125.
Accordingly, Society’s wholesale, cursory coverage denials are arbitrary and
unreasonable, and inconsistent with the facts and plain language of the policies it issued. These 
denials appear to be driven by Society’s desire to limit its own financial exposure to the economic 
fallout resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, rather than to initiate, as Society is obligated to do, a 
full and fair investigation of the claims and a careful review of the policies they sold to Plaintiffs 
in exchange for valuable premiums, and to pay valid claims that are owed under the Policies. 
VI.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
126.
The Class Plaintiffs bring the Class Claims (as defined herein) pursuant to Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.3 
127.
Herein, the “Illinois Class Plaintiffs” are Valley Lodge, Bag Tavern, Crosstown,
and The Barn. 
128.
Herein, the “Indiana Class Plaintiffs” are Ambrosia and Tolon.
129.
Herein, the “Iowa Class Plaintiffs” are Kalmes Club 528 and Micky’s Irish Pub.
130.
Herein, the “Minnesota Class Plaintiffs” are Willy McCoys Alberville, Willy
McCoys Andover, Willy McCoys Chaska, Willy McCoys Shakopee, and Willy McCoys Ramsey. 
131.
Herein, the “Tennessee Class Plaintiffs” are Green Hills Grille, Mere Bulles, and
Sunda Nashville. 
132.
Herein, the “Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs” are Madison Sourdough, Reefpoint Brew
House, and MJ Stevens.  
3 The Class Plaintiffs exclude the Individual Plaintiffs. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 31 of 74 PageID #:4414

30 
133.
All Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society; (b) suffered a suspension of business related to 
COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property insurance policy; and 
(c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the suspension of
business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the “Nationwide
Business Income Breach Class”).
134.
The Illinois Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Illinois statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Illinois; (b) suffered a suspension of business 
related to COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property insurance 
policy; and (c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the 
suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the 
“Illinois Business Income Breach Class”). 
135.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Indiana statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Indiana; (b) suffered a suspension of business 
related to COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property insurance 
policy; and (c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the 
suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the 
“Indiana Business Income Breach Class”). 
136.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Iowa statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Iowa; (b) suffered a suspension of business 
related to COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property insurance 
policy; and (c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the 
suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the 
“Iowa Business Income Breach Class”). 
137.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Minnesota statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Minnesota; (b) suffered a suspension of 
business related to COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property 
insurance policy; and (c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the 
suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the 
“Minnesota Business Income Breach Class”). 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 32 of 74 PageID #:4415

31 
138.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Tennessee statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Tennessee; (b) suffered a suspension of 
business related to COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property 
insurance policy; and (c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the 
suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the 
“Tennessee Business Income Breach Class”). 
139.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Wisconsin statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities that: (a) had Business Income coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Wisconsin; (b) suffered a suspension of 
business related to COVID-19, at the premises covered by their Society property 
insurance policy; and (c) were denied Business Income coverage by Society for the 
suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19 (the 
“Wisconsin Business Income Breach Class”). 
140.
All Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society; (b) sought to minimize the suspension of 
business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by their Society 
property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense coverage by Society 
despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business caused by COVID-19 
(the “Nationwide Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
141.
The Illinois Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Illinois statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Illinois; (b) sought to minimize the suspension 
of business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by their Society 
property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense coverage by Society 
despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business caused by COVID-19 
(the “Illinois Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
142.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Indiana statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Indiana; (b) sought to minimize the 
suspension of business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by 
their Society property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense 
coverage by Society despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business 
caused by COVID-19 (the “Indiana Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 33 of 74 PageID #:4416

32 
143.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Iowa statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Iowa; (b) sought to minimize the suspension 
of business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by their Society 
property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense coverage by Society 
despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business caused by COVID-19 
(the “Iowa Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
144.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Minnesota statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Minnesota; (b) sought to minimize the 
suspension of business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by 
their Society property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense 
coverage by Society despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business 
caused by COVID-19 (the “Minnesota Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
145.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Tennessee statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Tennessee; (b) sought to minimize the 
suspension of business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by 
their Society property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense 
coverage by Society despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business 
caused by COVID-19 (the “Tennessee Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
146.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Wisconsin statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities that: (a) had Extra Expense coverage under a property 
insurance policy issued by Society in Wisconsin; (b) sought to minimize the 
suspension of business in connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by 
their Society property insurance policy; and (c) were denied Extra Expense 
coverage by Society despite their efforts to minimize the suspension of business 
caused by COVID-19 (the “Wisconsin Extra Expense Breach Class”). 
147.
All Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class defined as:
All persons and entities with Business Income coverage under a property insurance 
policy issued by Society that suffered a suspension of business due to COVID-19 
at the premises covered by the business income coverage (the “Business Income 
Declaratory Judgment Class”). 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 34 of 74 PageID #:4417

33 
148.
All Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class defined as:
All persons and entities with Extra Expense coverage under a property insurance 
policy issued by Society that sought to minimize the suspension of business in 
connection with COVID-19 at the premises covered by their Society property 
insurance policy (the “Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class”). 
149.
The Illinois Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Illinois statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities with Business Income or Extra Expense coverage under a 
property insurance policy issued by Society in Illinois that suffered a bad faith 
denial of claims or refusal of coverage arising out of suspension of their business 
due to COVID-19 at the premises covered by their policy (the “Illinois Bad Faith 
Class”).  
150.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Indiana statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities with Business Income or Extra Expense coverage under a 
property insurance policy issued by Society in Indiana that suffered a bad faith 
denial of claims or refusal of coverage arising out of suspension of their business 
due to COVID-19 at the premises covered by their policy (the “Indiana Bad Faith 
Class”).  
151.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs seek to represent an Iowa statewide class defined as:
All persons and entities with Business Income or Extra Expense coverage under a 
property insurance policy issued by Society in Iowa that suffered a bad faith denial 
of claims or refusal of coverage arising out of suspension of their business due to 
COVID-19 at the premises covered by their policy (the “Iowa Bad Faith Class”).  
152.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Minnesota statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities with Business Income or Extra Expense coverage under a 
property insurance policy issued by Society in Minnesota that suffered a bad faith 
denial of claims or refusal of coverage arising out of suspension of their business 
due to COVID-19 at the premises covered by their policy (the “Minnesota Bad 
Faith Class”).  
153.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Tennessee statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities with Business Income or Extra Expense coverage under a 
property insurance policy issued by Society in Tennessee that suffered a bad faith 
denial of claims or refusal of coverage arising out of suspension of their business 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 35 of 74 PageID #:4418

34 
due to COVID-19 at the premises covered by their policy (the “Tennessee Bad Faith 
Class”).  
154.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs seek to represent a Wisconsin statewide class
defined as: 
All persons and entities with Business Income or Extra Expense coverage under a 
property insurance policy issued by Society in Wisconsin that suffered a bad faith 
denial of claims or refusal of coverage arising out of suspension of their business 
due to COVID-19 at the premises covered by their policy (the “Wisconsin Bad 
Faith Class”).  
155.
Given Society’s public denial and repudiation of its coverage obligations in
connection with COVID-19, each of the foregoing classes also include all persons and entities with 
covered losses who did not a make a claim under their policy.  
156.
Excluded from each defined Class is Defendant and any of its members, affiliates,
parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, or assigns; governmental entities; 
the Individual Plaintiffs; and the Court staff assigned to this case and their immediate family 
members. The Class Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend each of the Class definitions, 
as appropriate, during the course of this litigation. 
157.
The Class Plaintiffs’ claims in this action have been brought and may properly be
maintained on behalf of each Class proposed herein under the criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure. 
158.
Numerosity—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) (on behalf of Class
Plaintiffs only). The members of each defined Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all 
Class members is impracticable. While Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there are thousands 
of members of each Class, the precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs but may 
be ascertained from Defendant’s books and records. Class members may be notified of the 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 36 of 74 PageID #:4419

35 
pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may 
include U.S. Mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice. 
159.
Commonality and Predominance—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2)
and 23(b)(3) (on behalf of Class Plaintiffs only). The Class Plaintiffs’ claims involve common 
questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class 
members, including, without limitation: 
a.
Society issued all-risk policies to the members of the Class in exchange for payment
of premiums by Class Plaintiffs and the other Class members;
b. whether the Class suffered a covered loss based on the common policies issued to
Class Plaintiffs and the other Class members;
c.
whether Society wrongfully denied all claims based on COVID-19;
d. whether Society’s Business Income coverage applies to a suspension of business
caused by COVID-19;
e.
whether Society’s Civil Authority coverage applies to a loss of Business Income
caused by the orders of state governors requiring the suspension of business as a
result of COVID-19;
f.
whether the Class suffered compensable Extra Expense Loss in their effort to
minimize Business Income Loss caused by COVID-19;
g. whether Society’s Contamination coverage applies to a loss of Business Income
and Extra Expense as a result of COVID-19;
h. whether Society’s Sue and Labor provision applies to require Society to pay for
efforts to reduce damage caused by COVID-19;
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 37 of 74 PageID #:4420

36 
i.
whether Society has breached its contracts of insurance through a blanket denial of
all claims based on business interruption, income loss or closures related to
COVID-19 and the related closures; and
j.
whether Class Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney fees, interest, and costs.
160.
Typicality—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) (on behalf of Class
Plaintiffs only). Class Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the other Class members’ claims because 
Plaintiffs and the other Class members are all similarly affected by Defendant’s refusal to pay 
under its Business Income, Civil Authority Contamination, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor 
coverages. Class Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon the same legal theories as those of the other 
Class members. Class Plaintiffs and the other Class members sustained damages as a direct and 
proximate result of the same wrongful practices in which Defendant engaged.  
161.
Adequacy of Representation—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) (on
behalf of Class Plaintiffs only). Class Plaintiffs are adequate Class representatives because their 
interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class members who they seek to represent, 
Class Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action 
litigation, including successfully litigating class action cases similar to this one, where insurers 
breached contracts with insureds by failing to pay the amounts owed under their policies, and Class 
Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the above-defined Classes 
will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel. 
162.
Inconsistent or Varying Adjudications and the Risk of Impediments to Other
Class Members’ Interests—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) (on behalf of Class 
Plaintiffs only). Class Plaintiffs seek class-wide adjudication as to the interpretation, and resultant 
scope, of Defendant’s Business Income, Civil Authority, Contamination, Extra Expense, and Sue 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 38 of 74 PageID #:4421

37 
165.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set forth herein.
166.
Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members
of the Nationwide and State Business Income Breach Classes. 
and Labor coverages. Class Plaintiffs maintain that the prosecution of separate actions by 
individual members of the Classes would create an immediate risk of inconsistent or varying 
adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant. Moreover, 
the adjudications sought by Class Plaintiffs could, as a practical matter, substantially impair or 
impede the ability of other Class members, who are not parties to this action, to protect their 
interests. 
163.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
(on behalf of Class Plaintiffs only). Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally 
applicable to Plaintiffs and the other Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive 
relief and declaratory relief, as described below, with respect to the Class members. 
164.
Superiority—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (on behalf of Class
Plaintiffs only). Class Plaintiffs maintain that a class action is superior to any other available 
means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are 
likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. Individualized litigation creates a 
potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all 
parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management 
difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive 
supervision by a single court. 
VII.
CLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I 
BREACH OF CONTRACT -- BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE 
(Asserted by the Nationwide and State Business Income Breach Classes) 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 39 of 74 PageID #:4422

38 
167.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies, as well as those of the other Class members, are
contracts under which Society was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ 
and the other Class members’ losses for claims covered by the policy. 
168.
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society agreed to pay for its insureds’
actual loss of Business Income sustained due to the necessary suspension of its operations during 
the “period of restoration.”  
169.
A “partial slowdown or complete cessation” of business activities at the Covered
Property is a “suspension” under the policy, for which Society agreed to pay for loss of Business 
Income during the “period of restoration” “that occurs within 12 consecutive months after the date 
of direct physical loss or damage.” 
170.
“Business Income” means net income (or loss) before tax that Plaintiffs and the
other Class members would have earned “if no physical loss or damage had occurred.” 
171.
COVID-19 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 COVID-19 thus triggered the Business Income provision of Plaintiffs’ and the 
other Class members’ Society policies.  
172.
Plaintiffs and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions
of their policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from 
asserting them, and yet Society has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the 
Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms. 
173.
By denying coverage for any Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiffs and the
other Class members in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, Society has breached its 
coverage obligations under the Policies. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 40 of 74 PageID #:4423

39 
175.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set forth herein.
176.
Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members
of the Nationwide and State Extra Expense Breach Classes. 
177.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies, as well as those of the other Class members, are
contracts under which Society was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ 
and the other Class members’ losses for claims covered by the policy. 
178.
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society agreed to pay necessary Extra
Expense that its insureds incur during the “period of restoration” that the insureds would not have 
incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property. 
179.
“Extra Expense” means expenses “to avoid or minimize the suspension of business
and to continue ‘operations,’” and also includes expenses “to repair or replace property.” 
180.
Due to COVID-19 and the Closure Orders, Plaintiffs and the other members of the
Class incurred Extra Expense at Covered Property  
181.
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have complied with all applicable
provisions of the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Society or Society is 
estopped from asserting them, and yet Society has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations 
pursuant to the Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms. 
174.
As a result of Society’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiffs and the other Class
members have sustained substantial damages for which Society is liable, in an amount to be 
established at trial. 
COUNT II 
BREACH OF CONTRACT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 
(Asserted by the Nationwide and State Extra Expense Breach Classes) 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 41 of 74 PageID #:4424

40 
184.
Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set forth herein.
185.
Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members
of the Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class. 
186.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies, as well as those of the other Class members, are
contracts under which Society was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ 
and the other Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 
187.
Plaintiffs and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions
of the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from 
asserting them, and yet Society 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 are entitled. 
188.
Society has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class wide basis,
without individual bases or investigations, such that the Court can render declaratory judgment 
irrespective of whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 
189.
An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs’ and the other Class
members’ rights and Society’s obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiffs for the full 
182.
By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiffs and the other
members of the Class in connection with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Society 
has breached its coverage obligations under the Policies. 
183.
As a result of Society’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiffs and the other members
of the Class have sustained substantial damages for which Society is liable, in an amount to be 
established at trial. 
COUNT III 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE 
(Asserted by the Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class) 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 42 of 74 PageID #:4425

41 
amount of Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiffs and the other Class members in 
connection with suspension of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
190.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Business Income Declaratory
Judgment Class members seek a declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following: 
i.
Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class
members’ losses incurred in connection with the novel coronavirus, the Closure
Orders, and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the Policies;
ii.
Society has waived any right it may have had to assert defenses to coverage or
otherwise seek to bar or limit coverage for Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Business
Income Declaratory Judgment Class members’ losses by issuing blanket coverage
denials without conducting a claim investigation as required by law; and
iii.
Society is obligated to pay Class Plaintiffs and the other Business Income
Declaratory Judgment Class members for the full amount of the losses incurred and
to be incurred in connection with the covered business losses related to the Closure
Orders during both the four-week indemnity period and the necessary interruption
of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
COUNT IV 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE 
(Asserted by the Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class) 
191.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set forth herein.
192.
Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members
of the Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class. 
193.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies, as well as those of the other Class members, are
contracts under which Society was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ 
and the other Class members’ losses for claims covered by the Policy. 
194.
Plaintiffs and the other Class members have complied with all applicable provisions
of the Policies and/or those provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from 
asserting them, and yet Society has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 43 of 74 PageID #:4426

42 
Policies’ clear and unambiguous terms and has wrongfully and illegally refused to provide 
coverage to which Plaintiffs are entitled.  
195.
Society has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class wide basis,
without individual bases or investigations, such that the Court can render declaratory judgment 
irrespective of whether members of the Class have filed a claim. 
196.
An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs’ and the other Class
members’ rights and Society’s obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiffs and the other 
Class members for the full amount of Extra Expense losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection 
with Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-
19 pandemic. 
197.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory
Judgment Class members seek a declaratory judgment from this Court declaring the following: 
i.
Plaintiffs’ and the other Extra Expense Declaratory Judgment Class members’
Extra Expense losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the
necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic
are insured losses under their Policies; and
ii.
Society is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the other Extra Expense Declaratory
Judgment Class members for the full amount of the Extra Expense losses incurred
and to be incurred in connection with the covered losses related to the Closure
Orders during the period of restoration and the necessary interruption of their
businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
COUNT V 
BAD FAITH DENIAL OF INSURANCE COVERAGE 
(Asserted by the Illinois Bad Faith Class) 
198.
The Illinois Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set forth
herein. 
199.
The Illinois Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other
members of the Illinois Bad Faith Class. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 44 of 74 PageID #:4427

43 
200.
Society adopted a corporate policy of immediately denying the claims (either
verbally or through cursory emails or form letters) or publicly repudiating its obligation to provide 
coverage, without conducting any investigation, let alone a reasonable investigation based on all 
available information as required under the laws of the State of Illinois. 
201.
To discourage policyholders from even submitting claims, Society, through its
Chief Executive Officer Rick Parks, misled policyholders by citing a pandemic exclusion that does 
not exist in Society’s policies, when he sent a March 27, 2020 memo to all Society policyholders, 
including all Illinois policyholders. In doing so, Society knowingly misrepresented to its insurers 
relevant facts or policy provisions contained in policies they issued, in violating of the laws of the 
State of Illinois. 
202.
Further, based on information and belief, Society directed its insurance agents to
make sham claim notifications before Society’s policyholders even noticed their claims. Society 
took these actions, before claims were even submitted, as part of its plan to discourage claim 
notifications and to avoid any responsibility for its policyholders’ staggering losses. 
203.
Society’s blanket denials of the Illinois Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Illinois Bad
Faith Class members’ claims were vexatious and unreasonable. In most cases, Society offered no 
reason for its denials and failed to raise any bona fide disputes as to the whether the claims were 
covered by the Policies. 
204.
Society’s denials of claims by the Illinois Class Plaintiffs and the other Illinois Bad
Faith Class members constitute “improper claim practices under Illinois law”—namely, Society’s 
(1) refusals to pay Plaintiffs’ claims without conducting reasonable investigations based on all
available information and (2) failure to provide reasonable and accurate explanations of the bases 
in its denials. See 215 ILCS 5/154.6 (h), (n). 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 45 of 74 PageID #:4428

44 
COUNT VI 
BAD FAITH REFUSAL TO HONOR CLAIM - INDIANA 
(Asserted by the Indiana Bad Faith Class) 
205.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set
forth herein. 
206.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other
members of the Indiana Bad Faith Class. 
207.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class members
contracted with Society to provide them with comprehensive business insurance to insure against 
all risks (unless specifically excluded) a business might face. 
208.
These comprehensive business insurance policies include provisions that provide
coverage for the direct physical loss of or damage to the premises as well as actual loss of business 
income and extra expenses sustained during the suspension of operations as a result of such loss 
or damage. 
209.
The Indiana Class Plaintiffs and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class members
reported a loss of business property and business income under their respective business insurance 
policies and tendered claims for insurance coverage or were discouraged by Society’s repudiation 
of its coverage obligation from doing so. 
210.
Society acted in bad faith when, with the knowledge specified in paragraph 211
below, it: 
a.
decided, on a blanket basis, that it would not pay any business interruption
claims arising from or associated with coronavirus;
b. failed to conduct a fair, unbiased, and thorough investigation of or inquiry into
the Indiana Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class members’
claims;
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 46 of 74 PageID #:4429

45 
c.
advised the Indiana Class Plaintiffs and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class
members that a business closure pursuant to a government order was not a
direct physical loss under their policies and that the presence (actual or
alleged) of coronavirus on insured premises was not a covered cause of loss
without qualifying those statements in any respect, including, but not limited
to, stating that Society was interpreting undefined contract terms in making
these determinations.
d. failed to articulate a reasonable basis for denial of the claims presented by the
Indiana Class Plaintiffs and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class members.
211.
As its actions show, Defendant knew of its lack of a reasonable basis for denying
claims for coverage submitted by the Indiana Class Plaintiffs and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class 
members or repudiating its obligation to cover such claims. 
212.
Accordingly, the Indiana Class Plaintiffs and the other Indiana Bad Faith Class
members have been injured as a result of Defendant’s bad faith conduct and are entitled to 
damages, and all other allowable damages, including attorney’s fees in an amount to be proven at 
trial. 
COUNT VII 
BAD FAITH REFUSAL TO HONOR CLAIMS – IOWA 
(Asserted by the Iowa Bad Faith Class) 
213.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set forth
herein. 
214.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other
members of the Iowa Bad Faith Class. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 47 of 74 PageID #:4430

46 
a.
decided, on a blanket basis, that it would not pay any business interruption
claims arising from or associated with coronavirus;
b. failed to conduct a fair, unbiased, and thorough investigation of or inquiry into
the Iowa Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class members’
claims;
c.
advised the Iowa Class Plaintiffs and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class members
that a business closure pursuant to a government order was not a direct
physical loss under their policies and that the presence (actual or alleged) of
coronavirus on insured premises was not a covered cause of loss without
qualifying those statements in any respect, including, but not limited to,
215.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class members contracted
with Defendant to provide them with comprehensive business insurance to ensure against all risks 
(unless specifically excluded) that a business might face. 
216.
These comprehensive business insurance policies include provisions that provide
coverage for the direct physical loss of or damage to the premises, as well as actual loss of business 
income and extra expenses sustained during the suspension of operations as a result of such loss 
or damage. 
217.
The Iowa Class Plaintiffs and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class members reported a
loss of business property and business income under their respective business insurance policies 
and tendered claims for insurance coverage or were discouraged by Society’s repudiation of its 
coverage obligation from doing so. 
218.
Society acted in bad faith when, with the knowledge specified in paragraph 219
below, it: 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 48 of 74 PageID #:4431

47 
stating that Society was interpreting undefined contract terms in making these 
determinations. 
d. failed to articulate a reasonable basis for denial of the claims presented by the
Iowa Class Plaintiffs and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class members.
219.
As its actions show, Defendant knew of its lack of a reasonable basis for denying
claims for coverage submitted by the Iowa Class Plaintiffs and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class 
members or repudiating its obligation to cover such claims. 
220.
Accordingly, the Iowa Class Plaintiffs and the other Iowa Bad Faith Class members
have been injured as a result of Defendant’s bad faith conduct and are entitled to damages, and all 
other allowable damages, including attorney’s fees in an amount to be proven at trial. 
COUNT VIII 
STATUTORY BAD FAITH – MINN. STAT. § 604.18 
(Asserted by the Minnesota Bad Faith Class) 
221.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set
forth herein. 
222.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the
other members of the Minnesota Bad Faith Class. 
223.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs and the other Minnesota Bad Faith Class members
have tendered claims to Society, in this action or otherwise, formally demanding Business 
Interruption Coverage and Extra Expense Coverage for covered business-interruption losses they 
have incurred. Under the policy’s terms, the Minnesota Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Minnesota 
Bad Faith Class members’ claims were due and payable. 
224.
Despite receiving notice of the Minnesota Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Minnesota
Bad Faith Class members’ claims, Society failed to complete a reasonable investigation into the 
merits or the claims and instead, concocted and implemented a uniform practice of issuing blanket 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 49 of 74 PageID #:4432

48 
denials of coverage without conducting any investigation—much less a reasonable investigation—
and providing its insureds with boilerplate denials that reflected Society’s failure to account for 
the specific facts and losses presented by each Minnesota Class Plaintiff and each of the other 
Minnesota Bad Faith Class members.  
225.
Society’s denials of coverage to the Minnesota Class Plaintiffs and the other
Minnesota Bad Faith Class members were arbitrary, unreasonable, and failed to reasonably 
construe the insurance policy and consider the facts of each claim. 
226.
Society knew that it lacked a reasonable basis for denying insurance benefits to the
Minnesota Class Plaintiffs and the other Minnesota Bad Faith Class members and/or acted in 
reckless disregard of the lack of reasonable basis for denying the benefits. 
227.
Society’s denial of the Minnesota Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Minnesota Bad
Faith Class members’ claims and its failure and/or refusal to pay benefits owed under their policies 
was done in bad faith, vexatiously, and without reasonable cause. 
228.
Society’s refusal to pay the Minnesota Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Minnesota
Bad Faith Class members’ claims has inflicted additional expense, loss, or injury on the Minnesota 
Class Plaintiffs and the other Minnesota Bad Faith Class members, including attorney’s fees to 
bring suit to obtain and enforce coverage. 
229.
The Minnesota Class Plaintiffs and the other Minnesota Bad Faith Class members
are entitled to prejudgment and post judgment interest, all costs and disbursements allowed under 
the law, as well as all penalties, taxable costs, and attorney’s fees provided by Minn. Stat. § 604.18, 
subd. 3. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 50 of 74 PageID #:4433

49 
COUNT IX 
PUNITIVE DAMAGES – WITH RESPECT TO BREACH OF CONTRACT 
(Asserted by the Tennessee Bad Faith Class) 
230.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set
forth herein. 
231.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the
other members of the Tennessee Bad Faith Class. 
232.
Society’s breach of contract has been intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless,
justifying an award of punitive damages.  
COUNT X 
STATUTORY BAD FAITH – T.C.A. § 56-7-105 
(Asserted by the Tennessee Bad Faith Class) 
233.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set
forth herein. 
234.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the
other members of the Tennessee Bad Faith Class. 
235.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs and the other Tennessee Bad Faith Class members
have tendered claims to Society, by originally filing a class action, more than 60 days ago, formally 
demanding Business Interruption Coverage for covered, business interruption losses that they have 
incurred. Under the policy’s terms, their claims were due and payable. Society, acting in bad faith, 
vexatiously, and without reasonable cause, refused to pay those claims. 
236.
Society’s refusal to pay has inflicted additional expense, loss, or injury on the
Tennessee Class Plaintiffs and the other Tennessee Bad Faith Class members, including attorney’s 
fees to bring suit to obtain and enforce coverage. 
237.
The Tennessee Class Plaintiffs and the other Tennessee Bad Faith Class members
are entitled to all damages provided by T.C.A. § 56-7-105(b). 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 51 of 74 PageID #:4434

50 
COUNT XI 
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 
(Asserted by the Wisconsin Bad Faith Class) 
238.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set
forth herein. 
239.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the
other members of the Wisconsin Bad Faith Class. 
240.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members
contracted with Defendant to provide them with comprehensive business insurance to ensure 
against all risks (unless specifically excluded) a business might face. 
241.
An implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is an element in every Wisconsin
contract between insurance companies and their insureds. 
242.
Society’s contracts are subject to the implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing that all parties would act in good faith and with reasonable efforts in performing their 
contractual duties and not to impair the rights of other parties to receive the rights, benefits, and 
reasonable expectations under the contracts. These included the implied covenants that Defendant 
would act fairly and in good faith in carrying out their contractual obligations to provide the 
Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members with comprehensive 
business insurance. 
243.
Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by:
a.
Selling policies that appear to provide liberal coverage for loss of property and
lost business income with the intent of interpreting undefined or poorly
defined terms, undefined terms, and ambiguously written exclusions to deny
coverage under circumstances foreseen by Defendant;
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 52 of 74 PageID #:4435

51 
b. Denying coverage for loss of property and lost business income unreasonably,
and without a rational basis in their policy and applicable law, by applying
undefined, ambiguous, and contradictory terms contrary to applicable rules of
policy construction and the plain terms and purpose of the policies;
c.
Denying the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith
Class members’ claims for loss of property and loss of business income
without conducting a fair, unbiased and thorough investigation or inquiry;
d. Compelling policyholders, including the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the
other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members, to initiate litigation to secure the
policy benefits to which they are entitled.
244.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members
met all or substantially all of their contractual obligations, including by paying all the premiums 
required by Defendant. 
245.
Defendant’s failure to act in good faith in providing comprehensive business
insurance coverage to the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class 
members denied them the full benefit of their bargain. 
246.
Accordingly, the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith
Class members have been injured as a result of Defendant’s breach of the covenant of good faith 
and fair dealing and are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  
COUNT XII 
BAD FAITH REFUSAL TO HONOR CLAIM 
(Asserted by the Wisconsin Bad Faith Class) 
247.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-164 as if fully set
forth herein. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 53 of 74 PageID #:4436

52 
248.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the
other members of the Wisconsin Bad Faith Class. 
249.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members
contracted with Defendant to provide them with comprehensive business insurance to ensure 
against all risks (unless specifically excluded) a business might face. 
250.
These comprehensive business insurance policies include provisions that provide
coverage for the direct physical loss of or damage to the premises as well as actual loss of business 
income and extra expenses sustained during the suspension of operations as a result of such loss 
or damage. 
251.
Governmental entities at the state and local level of Wisconsin have ordered a series
of Public Health Orders, mandating that Wisconsinites refrain from mass gatherings and places 
various restrictions on restaurants, cafes, bars, and other food service outlets. These restrictions 
have ranged from a total prohibition on seated dining to limitations on the number of persons and 
the arrangement of people and furniture permitted in dining areas at any given time to maintain 
adequate space between patrons. 
252.
As a direct result of these mandates and due to the persistent presence and
prevalence of coronavirus in the community, the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other 
Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members have suffered direct physical loss of their insured property 
within the meaning of Society’s policy resulting in substantial loss of business income. 
253.
The Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members
reported a loss of business property and business income under their respective business insurance 
policies. 
254.
Defendant denied the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Wisconsin Bad
Faith Class members’ claims for insurance coverage. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 54 of 74 PageID #:4437

53 
255.
Society acted in bad faith when it:
a.
failed to conduct a fair, unbiased, and thorough investigation of or inquiry into
the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class
members’ claims;
b. advised the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith
Class members that a business closure pursuant to a government order was not
a direct physical loss under their policies and that the presence (actual or
alleged) of coronavirus on insured premises was not a covered cause of loss
without qualifying those statements in any respect, including, but not limited
to, stating that Society was interpreting undefined contract terms in making
these determinations.
c.
failed to articulate a reasonable basis for denial of the claims presented by the
Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith Class members.
256.
Defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded the lack of a reasonable basis for
denying claims for coverage submitted by the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin 
Bad Faith Class members. 
257.
Accordingly, the Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs and the other Wisconsin Bad Faith
Class members have been injured as a result of Defendant’s bad faith conduct and are entitled to 
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be proven at trial. 
VIII.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Class Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, 
respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows: 
a.
Entering an order certifying the proposed nationwide and state Classes, as requested
herein, designating Class Plaintiffs as Class representatives, and appointing Plaintiffs’ undersigned 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 55 of 74 PageID #:4438

54 
Plaintiffs’ MDL Co-Lead Counsel and Counsel for the Class Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes 
as Class Counsel;  
b.
Entering judgment on Counts I-II in favor of Class Plaintiffs and the other members
of the nationwide and state Business Income Breach Classes and Extra Expense Breach Classes; 
and awarding damages for breach of contract in an amount to be determined at trial; 
c.
Entering declaratory judgments on Counts III-IV in favor of Class Plaintiffs and
the other members of the Business Income Declaratory Judgment Class and Extra Expense 
Declaratory Judgment Class as follows: 
i.
Business Income and Extra Expense incurred in connection with the novel
coronavirus, the Closure Orders, and the necessary interruption of their businesses
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under their Policies;
ii. Society has waived any right it may have had to assert defenses to coverage or
otherwise seek to bar or limit coverage for Individual Plaintiffs’ losses by issuing
blanket coverage denials without conducting a claim investigation as required by
law; andand
iii. Society is obligated to pay for the full amount of the Business Income and Extra
Expense losses and costs incurred and to be incurred related to the novel
coronavirus, the Closure Orders, and the necessary interruption of their businesses
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic;
d.
Entering judgment on Counts V-XII in favor of Class Plaintiffs and the other
members of the state Bad Faith Classes in an amount equal to the maximum damages allowable 
for bad faith denial of insurance coverage in the jurisdictions in which each of the Class Plaintiffs 
respectively operates, which amount(s) shall be established at the conclusion of this action. 
e.
Ordering Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded; 
f.
Ordering Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
g.
Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
IX.
JURY DEMAND
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 56 of 74 PageID #:4439

55 
Class Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable.  
*** *** *** 
X.
CLASS CLAIMS PRESERVED FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS – COUNTS XIII TO XVIII
258.
Class Plaintiffs operate restaurants and other businesses in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly 
had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or in order to prevent further 
property damage, Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from Society, including Special 
Property Coverage, as set forth in Society’s Businessowner’s Special Property Coverage Form. 
259.
Society’s Special Property Coverage Form provides business interruption
coverage, including Civil Authority, Contamination, and Sue and Labor coverages, described 
below.  
260.
Class Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce operations at their businesses due
to COVID-19 and the resultant Closure Orders issued by civil authorities with jurisdiction over 
their businesses, mandating at times since March 2020, among other measures, closures, 
elimination of services, restricted hours, and capacity limits. Plaintiffs were also forced to take 
necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue 
operations. 
261.
Class Plaintiffs have performed all of their obligations under each of their policies.
The Covered Property, with respect to the policies, is the real and personal property of the business 
premises of each respective Plaintiff.  
262.
Each Plaintiff’s Special Property Coverage Form, included within the policies,
includes identical Civil Authority, Contamination, and Sue and Labor coverages. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 57 of 74 PageID #:4440

56 
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. 
267.
Society also agreed to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income” that Plaintiffs
sustain “and any Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to” the 
263. 
In many parts of the world, property insurance is sold on a specific peril basis. Such 
policies cover a risk of loss if that risk of loss is specifically listed (e.g., hurricane, earthquake, 
H1N1, etc.). Most property policies sold in the United States, however, including those sold by 
Society, are all-risk property damage policies. These types of policies cover all risks of loss except 
for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded. In the Special Property Coverage Form 
provided to Plaintiffs under the heading “Covered Causes of Loss,” Society agreed to “pay for 
direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property” “unless the loss is excluded or limited by” the 
Special Property Coverage Form. 
264. 
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society did not exclude or limit coverage 
for losses from viruses. 
265. 
Losses due to COVID-19 are a Covered Cause of Loss under the Society policies 
with the Special Property Coverage Form. 
266. 
The presence of virus or disease can constitute physical damage to property, as the 
insurance industry has recognized since at least 2006. When preparing so-called “virus” exclusions 
to be placed in some policies, but not others, the insurance industry drafting arm, ISO, circulated 
a statement to state insurance regulators that included the following: 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 58 of 74 PageID #:4441

57 
Covered Property when a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property other than the 
Covered Property and the civil authority prohibits access to the property and its surrounding area 
and takes such action “in response to dangerous physical conditions.” 
268. 
Society’s Special Property Coverage Form provides “Contamination” coverage that 
pays for the actual loss of Business Income and Extra Expense caused by “‘Contamination’ that 
results in an action by a public health or other governmental authority that prohibits access to the 
described premises or production of your product.” The Special Property Coverage Form broadly 
defines a covered loss due to “Contamination” as occurring in a variety of circumstances, including 
the following: (a) “Contamination” that results in an action by a public health or other 
governmental authority that prohibits access to the described premises or production of your 
product; (b) a “Contamination threat”, or (c) “publicity” resulting from the discovery or suspicion 
of “Contamination.” The Special Property Coverage Form defines “Contamination” as “a defect, 
deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in your products, merchandise or premises.” 
269. 
Society’s Special Property Coverage Form, under a section entitled “Duties in the 
Event of Loss or Damage” mandates that Society’s insured “must see that the following are done 
in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property . . . [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the 
Covered Property from further damage and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect 
the Covered Property, for consideration in the settlement of the claim.” This type of coverage has 
historically been known as “Sue and Labor” coverage or a “Sue and Labor” provision, and property 
policies have long provided coverage for these types of expenses. 
270. 
Indeed, the presence of COVID-19 has caused civil authorities throughout the 
country to issue orders requiring the suspension of business at a wide range of establishments, 
including civil authorities with jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ businesses. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 59 of 74 PageID #:4442

58 
274.
Society has denied Plaintiffs’ claims for coverage.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF – COUNTS XIII TO XVIII 
COUNT XIII 
BREACH OF CONTRACT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 
(Asserted by All Class Plaintiffs) 
275.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 to 164 and 258 to 274 as if fully set forth
herein. 
276.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies are contracts under which Society was paid premiums
in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for Civil Authority coverage claims covered 
by the policy. 
277.
Society promised to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income” sustained “and
any Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibit access to” the Covered Property 
when a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property other than the Covered Property and 
the civil authority takes its action “in response to dangerous physical conditions.” 
278.
The Closure Orders issued in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and
other states triggered the Civil Authority provision under Plaintiffs’ Society policies. COVID-19 
271. 
The presence of COVID-19 caused “direct physical loss of or damage to” each 
“Covered Property” under the Plaintiffs’ policies by denying use of and damaging the Covered 
Property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration. 
272. 
The Closure Orders prohibited access to Plaintiffs’ Covered Property, and the area 
immediately surrounding Covered Property, in response to dangerous physical conditions resulting 
from a Covered Cause of Loss. 
273. 
Losses caused by COVID-19 and the related Closure Orders caused Plaintiffs to 
incur Business Income and Extra Expense losses, and triggered the Civil Authority, 
Contamination, and Sue and Labor provisions of the Society policy. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 60 of 74 PageID #:4443

59 
282.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 to 164 and 258 to 274 as if fully set forth
herein. 
283.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies are contracts under which Society was paid premiums
in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for Contamination coverage claims covered 
by the policy. 
caused direct physical loss or damage to property near the Covered Property in the same manner 
described above that it caused direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property. The civil 
authority orders were actions taken in response to the dangerous physical conditions resulting from 
the direct physical loss or damage to such properties. And, the civil authority orders prohibited 
access to an immediately surrounding area that included the Covered Property. 
279. 
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies and/or those 
provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from asserting them, and yet 
Society 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 are entitled. 
280. 
By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection 
with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Society has breached its coverage 
obligations under the Policies. 
281. 
As a result of Society’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiffs have sustained 
substantial damages for which Society is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 
COUNT XIV 
BREACH OF CONTRACT – CONTAMINATION COVERAGE 
(Asserted by All Class Plaintiffs) 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 61 of 74 PageID #:4444

60 
284. 
Society promised to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income and Extra Expense 
caused by ‘Contamination’ that results in an action by a public health or other governmental 
authority that prohibits access to the described premises or production of your product.” 
285. 
Society specifically defines “Contamination” as “a defect, deficiency, inadequacy 
or dangerous condition in your products, merchandise or premises.” 
286. 
The Special Property Coverage Form also provides a broad definition for 
determining when a covered loss due to “Contamination” occurs, including the following: (a 
“Contamination” that results in an action by a public health or other governmental authority that 
prohibits access to the described premises or production of your product; (b a “Contamination 
threat”, or (c “publicity” resulting from the discovery or suspicion of “Contamination.” 
287. 
COVID-19 constitutes Contamination that resulted in the Closure Orders  that  
prohibits access to the described premises or the production of product. 
288. 
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies and/or those 
provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from asserting them, and yet 
Society 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 are entitled. 
289. 
By denying coverage for any business losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection 
with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Society has breached its coverage 
obligations under the Policies. 
290. 
As a result of Society’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiffs have sustained 
substantial damages for which Society is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 62 of 74 PageID #:4445

61 
COUNT XV 
BREACH OF CONTRACT – SUE AND LABOR COVERAGE 
(Asserted by All Class Plaintiffs) 
291.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 to 164 and 258 to 274 as if fully set forth
herein. 
292.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies are contracts under which Society was paid premiums
in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for Sue and Labor coverage claims covered by 
the policy. 
293.
In the Special Property Coverage Form, Society agreed to give due consideration
in settlement of a claim to expenses incurred in taking all reasonable steps to protect Covered 
Property from further damage. 
294.
In complying with the Closure Orders and otherwise suspending or limiting
operations, Plaintiffs incurred expenses in connection with reasonable steps to protect Covered 
Property. 
295.
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies and/or those
provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from asserting them, and yet 
Society 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 are entitled. 
296.
By denying coverage for any Sue and Labor expenses incurred by Plaintiffs in
connection with the Closure Orders and the COVID-19 pandemic, Society has breached its 
coverage obligations under the Policies. 
297.
As a result of Society’s breaches of the Policies, Plaintiffs sustained substantial
damages for which Society is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 63 of 74 PageID #:4446

62 
COUNT XVI 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – CIVIL AUTHORITY COVERAGE 
(Asserted by All Class Plaintiffs) 
298.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 to 164 and 258 to 274 as if fully set forth
herein. 
299.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies are contracts under which Society was paid premiums
in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for Civil Authority coverage claims covered 
by the policy. 
300.
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies and/or those
provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from asserting them, and yet 
Society 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 are entitled. 
301.
Society has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform basis, without
individual bases or investigations. 
302.
An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Society’s
obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiffs for the full amount of covered Civil Authority 
losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of 
their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
303.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from this Court
declaring the following: 
i.
Plaintiffs’ Civil Authority losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders
and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-
19 pandemic are insured losses under their Policies; and
ii.
Society is obligated to pay Plaintiffs the full amount of the Civil Authority
losses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the covered losses related
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 64 of 74 PageID #:4447

63 
to the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses 
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
COUNT XVII 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – CONTAMINATION COVERAGE 
(Asserted by All Class Plaintiffs) 
304.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 to 164 and 258 to 274 as if fully set forth
herein. 
305.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies are contracts under which Society was paid premiums
in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for Contamination coverage claims covered 
by the policy. 
306.
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies and/or those
provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from asserting them, and yet 
Society 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 are entitled. 
307.
Society has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform basis, without
individual bases or investigations. 
308.
An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Society’s
obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiffs for the full amount of covered Contamination 
losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of 
their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
309.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from this Court
declaring the following: 
i.
Plaintiffs’ covered Contamination losses incurred in connection with the
Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming
from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under their Policies; and
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 65 of 74 PageID #:4448

64 
ii.
Society is obligated to pay Plaintiffs the full amount of the covered
Contamination losses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the Closure
Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic.
COUNT XVIII 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – SUE AND LABOR COVERAGE 
(Asserted by All Class Plaintiffs) 
310.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 to 164 and 258 to 274 as if fully set forth
herein. 
311.
Plaintiffs’ Society policies are contracts under which Society was paid premiums
in exchange for its promise to pay Plaintiffs’ losses for Sue and Labor coverage claims covered by 
the policy. 
312.
Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the Policies and/or those
provisions have been waived by Society or Society is estopped from asserting them, and yet 
Society 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 are entitled. 
313.
Society has denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform basis, without
individual bases or investigations. 
314.
An actual case or controversy exists regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Society’s
obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiffs for the full amount Plaintiffs reasonably 
incurred to protect Covered Property from further damage by COVID-19. 
315.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from this Court
declaring the following: 
i.
Plaintiffs’ reasonably incurred expenses to protect Covered Property from
further damage by COVID-19 are insured losses under their Policies; and
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 66 of 74 PageID #:4449

65 
ii.
Society is obligated to pay Plaintiffs for the full amount of the expenses they
reasonably incurred to protect Covered Property from further damage by
COVID-19.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF – COUNTS XIII TO XVIII 
WHEREFORE, Class Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their 
favor and against Defendant as follows: 
a.
Entering judgment on Counts XIII to XV in favor of Class Plaintiffs; and awarding
damages for breach of contract in an amount to be determined at trial; 
b.
Entering declaratory judgments on Counts XVI to XVIII in favor of Class Plaintiffs
as follows; 
i.
Civil Authority, Contamination, and Sue and Labor losses incurred in
connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of Class
Plaintiffs’ businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured
losses under their Policies; and
ii.
Society is obligated to pay for the full amount of the Civil Authority,
Contamination, and Sue and Labor losses incurred and to be incurred related to
COVID-19, the Closure Orders, and the necessary interruption of Class
Plaintiffs’ businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic;
c.
Ordering Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded; 
d.
Ordering Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
e.
Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
JURY DEMAND – COUNTS XIII TO XVIII 
Class Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable. 
*** *** *** 
XI.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 67 of 74 PageID #:4450

66 
COUNT XIX 
BREACH OF CONTRACT 
(Asserted by the Individual Plaintiffs) 
316.
Individual Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 125 as if fully set forth herein.
317.
Each policy issued to the Individual Plaintiffs is an insurance contract under which
Society was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Individual Plaintiffs’ losses for 
claims covered by the policy, such as business losses incurred as a result of the Illinois Closure 
Orders interrupting their ordinary business operations and the necessary interruption of their 
businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
318.
Individual Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of the policies,
including payment of the premiums in exchange for coverage under the policies, and yet Society 
has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations. 
319.
By denying coverage for any business income losses incurred by Individual
Plaintiffs caused by COVID-19, the Illinois Interruption Orders, and the COVID-19 pandemic, 
Society has breached its coverage obligations under the policies issued to the Individual Plaintiffs. 
320.
As a result of Society’s breaches, the Individual Plaintiffs have sustained
substantial damages for which Society is liable, in an amount to be established at trial. 
COUNT XX 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
(Asserted by the Individual Plaintiffs) 
321.
Individual Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 125 and 316 to 320 as if fully set forth
herein. 
322.
Each policy issued to Individual Plaintiffs is an insurance contract under which
Society Insurance was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay Individual Plaintiffs’ 
losses for claims covered by their policy, such as business losses incurred as a result of the Illinois 
Closure Orders forcing the interruption of their ordinary business operations. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 68 of 74 PageID #:4451

67 
323.
Individual Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable provisions of their policies,
including payment of the premiums in exchange for coverage under their policies. 
324.
Society has arbitrarily and without justification refused to reimburse Individual
Plaintiffs for any losses incurred by Individual Plaintiffs in connection with the covered business 
losses caused by COVID-19, the Illinois Closure Orders, and the necessary interruption of their 
businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
325.
An actual case or controversy exists regarding Individual Plaintiffs’ rights and
Society’s obligations under their policies to reimburse Individual Plaintiffs for the full amount of 
losses incurred by Individual Plaintiffs in connection with the Illinois Orders and the necessary 
interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
326.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Individual Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
from this Court declaring the following: 
(a) Individual Plaintiffs’ losses incurred in connection with the novel coronavirus,
the Illinois Closure Orders, and the necessary interruption of their businesses
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the policies;
(b) Society has waived any right it may have had to assert defenses to coverage or
otherwise seek to bar or limit coverage for Individual Plaintiffs’ losses by
issuing blanket coverage denials without conducting a claim investigation as
required under Illinois law; and
(c) Society  is obligated to pay Individual Plaintiffs for the full amount of the losses
incurred and to be incurred in connection with the covered business losses
related to the Illinois Closure Orders during both the four-week indemnity period
and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-
19 pandemic.
COUNT XXI 
STATUTORY PENALTY FOR BAD FAITH DENIAL OF INSURANCE UNDER 215 
ILCS 5/155 
(Asserted by the Individual Plaintiffs) 
327.
Individual Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 125 and 316-326 as if fully set forth
herein.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 69 of 74 PageID #:4452

68 
331.
Society’s denials were vexatious and unreasonable.
332.
Society’s denials constitute “improper claims practices” under Illinois law—
namely Society’s (1) refusals to pay Individual Plaintiffs’ claims without conducting reasonable 
investigations based on all available information and (2) failure to provide reasonable and accurate 
explanations of the bases in its denials. See 215 ILCS 5/154.6 (h), (n). 
333.
Society offered no reason for its denials and failed to raise any bona fide disputes
as to the whether the claims were covered by the policies. 
334.
Therefore, pursuant to 215 ILCS 5/155, Individual Plaintiffs request that, in
addition to entering a judgment in favor of Individual Plaintiffs and against Society for the amount 
owed under the policies at the time of judgment, the Court enter a judgment in favor of Individual 
328. 
Upon receipt of the their business interruption claims, Society immediately denied 
the claims (either verbally or through cursory emails without conducting any investigation, let 
alone a “reasonable investigation based on all available information” as required under Illinois 
law. See 215 ILCS 5/154. 
329. 
To discourage policyholders from even filing claims, Society, through its Chief 
Executive Officer Rick Parks, misled policyholders by citing a pandemic exclusion that does not 
exist in policies issued by Society Insurance in a March 27, 2020 memo issued to all policyholders, 
in blatant violation of Illinois law that prohibits insurers from knowingly misrepresenting to their 
insureds relevant facts or policy provisions contained in policies they issued. See id. 
330. 
To make matters worse, based on information and belief, Society directed its 
insurance agents, who are not Individual Plaintiffs’ agents, to make sham claim notifications 
before Society’s policyholders even noticed their claims. Society took these actions, before claims 
were even submitted, as part of its plan to discourage claim notifications and to avoid any 
responsibility for its policyholders’ staggering losses, in violation of Illinois law. 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 70 of 74 PageID #:4453

69 
i.
The Individual Plaintiffs’ losses incurred in connection with the novel coronavirus,
the Business Interruption Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the policies;
ii. Society has waived any right it may have had to assert defenses to coverage or
otherwise seek to bar or limit coverage for Class Plaintiffs’ and the other Business
Income Declaratory Judgment Class members’ losses by issuing blanket coverage
denials without conducting a claim investigation as required under Illinois law; and
iii. Society Insurance is obligated to pay Individual Plaintiffs for the full amount of the
losses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the covered business losses
related to the Illinois Closure Orders during the four-week indemnity period and
during the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19
pandemic.
b.
Entering a judgment on Count XIX of the Complaint in favor of Individual
Plaintiffs and against Society and award damages for breach of contract in an amount to be proven 
at trial; 
Plaintiffs and against Society for an amount equal to the greater of (1) 60% of the amount which 
the trier of fact finds that Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to recover under the policies, exclusive 
of costs; and (2) $60,000 per Plaintiff. See 215 ILCS 5/155.  
335. 
Individual Plaintiffs further request that the Court enter a judgment in favor of 
Individual Plaintiffs and against Society in an amount equal to the attorneys’ fees and costs 
incurred by Plaintiffs for the prosecution of this coverage action against Society, which amount 
will be proved at or after trial, pursuant to 215 ILCS 5/155. 
REQUEST FOR RELIEF 
(Asserted by the Individual Plaintiffs) 
WHEREFORE, the Individual Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment 
in their favor and against Defendant as follows: 
a. 
Entering a declaratory judgment on Count XX of the Complaint in favor of the 
Individual Plaintiffs and against Society, declaring as follows:  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 71 of 74 PageID #:4454

70 
JURY DEMAND 
The Individual Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues so triable. 
c. 
Entering a judgment on Count XXI of the Complaint in favor of Individual 
Plaintiffs and against Society in the amount equal to amount equal to the greater of (1) 60% of the 
amount which the trier of fact finds that Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to recover under the 
policies, exclusive of costs; and (2) $60,000 per Individual Plaintiff;  
d. 
Entering a judgment in favor of Individual Plaintiffs and against Society in an 
amount equal to all attorneys’ fees and related costs incurred for the prosecution of this coverage 
action against Society, pursuant to 215 ILCS 5/155, which amount to be established at the 
conclusion of this action; 
e. 
Awarding to Individual Plaintiffs and against Society prejudgment interest, to be 
calculated according to law, to compensate Individual Plaintiffs for the loss of use of funds caused 
by Society’s wrongful refusal to pay Individual Plaintiffs for the full amount in costs incurred in 
connection with their business interruption claims.   
f. 
Award Individual Plaintiffs such other, further, and additional relief as this Court 
deems just and appropriate.  
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 72 of 74 PageID #:4455

71 
Dated: August 27, 2021 
Respectfully submitted,  
/s/ Adam J. Levitt 
Adam J. Levitt 
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor 
Chicago, Illinois  60602 
Telephone: 312-214-7900 
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com 
Timothy W. Burns 
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP 
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 
Madison, Wisconsin  53703 
Telephone: 608-286-2302 
tburns@bbblawllp.com 
Shannon M. McNulty 
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 
120 North LaSalle Street, #3100 
Chicago, Illinois  60602 
Telephone: 312-899-9090 
smm@cliffordlaw.com 
W. Mark Lanier
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North
Suite 100
Houston, Texas  77064
Telephone: 713-659-5200
WML@lanierlawfirm.com
Plaintiffs’ MDL Co-Lead Counsel and 
Counsel for the Class Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Classes 
Shelby S. Guilbert, Jr. 
MCGUIREWOODS LLP 
1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2100 
Atlanta, Georgia  30309 
Telephone: 404-443-5723  
sguilbert@mcguirewoods.com 
Plaintiffs’ MDL Co-Lead Counsel and 
Counsel for the Individual Plaintiffs 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 73 of 74 PageID #:4456

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically using the Court’s 
CM/ECF service, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record on this 27th 
day of August, 2021. 
/s/ Adam J. Levitt 
Adam J. Levitt 
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor 
Chicago, Illinois  60602 
Telephone:  312-214-7900 
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com 
One of Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel 
Case: 1:20-cv-05965 Document #: 262 Filed: 08/27/21 Page 74 of 74 PageID #:4457

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.392081.262.0.pdf

Size

641,663 bytes

SHA-256

7a027137943f7863e572cb3bdee5ec29d2ffa93a4898da791d5465fe4e9e11e1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.392081.262.0.pdf

Original

archive.org