Case docket
Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company — court filings
Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company — court filings — 6 documents in the archive, dated April 27, 2020 to August 12, 2020.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division (5 filings); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (1 filing) |
|---|---|
| Docket number | No. 6:20-cv-03127 — main docket · CourtListener docket 151497 |
| Filings | 6 public filings |
| Filed | 2020-04-27 – 2020-08-12 |
| Document types | complaints (2), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 6 of 6 |
Case summary
Studio 417, Inc. and other Missouri hair salons and restaurants sued The Cincinnati Insurance Company on April 27, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, Case No. 20-cv-03127-SRB, after the insurer denied their claims for losses caused by COVID-19 and the closure orders issued by civil authorities in Missouri and Kansas. The first amended class action complaint of June 1, 2020 asserts declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims across seven coverages and seeks certification of 14 nationwide classes and a Missouri subclass. The policies promise payment for direct loss, define a covered cause of loss as accidental physical loss or damage, do not define physical loss or physical damage, and contain no virus or communicable disease exclusion. The court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss on August 12, 2020.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiffs Studio 417, Inc. and other named policyholders, individually and on behalf of proposed nationwide classes and a Missouri subclass; defendant The Cincinnati Insurance Company |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, Case No. 6:20-cv-03127-SRB |
| Program | Not named in the filings on this page. The claims are on commercial property insurance policies, not on a pandemic relief program |
| Claims | Declaratory judgment and breach of contract on Business Income coverage (counts I and II), Extra Expense (III, IV), Dependent Property (V, VI), Civil Authority (VII, VIII), Extended Business Income (IX, X), Ingress and Egress (XI, XII) and Sue and Labor (XIII, XIV) |
| Disposition or status | The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied on August 12, 2020. No later filing is on this page |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What does the amended complaint allege?
That the presence of COVID-19 and the closure orders caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage to the plaintiffs' premises by denying use of and damaging the covered property and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration, and that the insurer denied the claims after notice. These are the complaint's allegations.
What did the court decide?
It denied the motion to dismiss, taking the allegations of the amended complaint as true at that stage.
What do the policies say?
That the insurer would pay for direct loss unless the loss is excluded or limited, with a covered cause of loss defined to mean accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage. The order records that the policies do not define physical loss or physical damage and do not include any exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases.
Docket
6 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.
No. 6:20-cv-03127
- Class Action Complaint — Studio 417 v. Cincinnati InsuranceEntry 1
- —Entries 2–15 are not in the archive
- First Amended Class Action Complaint — Studio 417 v. Cincinnati InsuranceEntry 16
- —Entries 17–20 are not in the archive
- Defendant’s Suggestions in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss — Studio 417 v. Cincinnati InsuranceEntry 21
- —Entries 22–30 are not in the archive
- Plaintiffs’ Suggestions in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss — Studio 417 v. Cincinnati InsuranceEntry 31
- —Entries 32–36 are not in the archive
- Defendant’s Reply Suggestions in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss — Studio 417 v. Cincinnati Insurance (W.D. Mo.)Entry 37
- —Entries 38–39 are not in the archive
- Order Denying the Motion to Dismiss — Studio 417 v. Cincinnati Insurance (W.D. Mo.)Entry 40
More documents from this case’s dockets
6 more documents linked to this case’s dockets are in the archive and not in the docket above.
- Exhibit 1 — The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Case 6:20-cv-03127-SRB Document 1-1ExhibitExhibit 1 (Document 1-1), No. 6:20-cv-03127-SRB, filed April 27, 2020: Cincinnati Casualty Company commercial policy issued to Studio 417, Inc.
- Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File AnswerMotionUnopposed motion for extension of time to answer, Doc 10, Studio 417, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance, No. 6:20-cv-03127-SRB.
- Insurance Policy (Exhibit A) — Grand Street Dining v. Cincinnati InsuranceExhibit
- Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company — Motion (Western District of Missouri, Western Division)MotionMotion to appoint interim class counsel, Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo.), October 8, 2020.
- Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Appointment of Interim Class CounselOrderOrder appointing interim class counsel in Studio 417 v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case 6:20-cv-03127-SRB, Document 65.
- undatedCivil Cover Sheet (JS 44) — Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company (W.D. Mo.)Cover sheet
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.