Johnson v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02000-SDG
• Citation: 510 F.Supp.3d 1326
• Parties: Roy H. JOHNSON, DDS, and Windy Hill Dentistry, LLC, and D. Casey Hart DDS P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

510 F.Supp.3d 1326

Roy H. JOHNSON, DDS, and Windy Hill Dentistry, LLC, and D. Casey Hart DDS P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.The HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02000-SDG

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed January 4, 2021

John Raymond Bevis, Mark Davis Meliski, Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Marietta, GA, for Plaintiffs Roy H. Johnson, DDS, Windy Hill Dentistry, LLC.

Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Marietta, GA, for Plaintiff DDS P.C. D. Casey Hart.

Anthony J. Anscombe, Pro Hac Vice, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL, Caleb C. Wolanek, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher C. Frost, John A. Little, Jr., Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Sarah D. Gordon, Pro Hac Vice, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC, Jason S. Alloy, Joseph Harris Saul, Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois, Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford.

Alan E. Schoenfeld, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan M. Chabot, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, New York, NY, Anthony J. Anscombe, Pro Hac Vice, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL, Caleb C. Wolanek, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher C. Frost, John A. Little, Jr., Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Sarah D. Gordon, Pro Hac Vice, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC, Jason S. Alloy, Joseph Harris Saul, Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company.

Anthony J. Anscombe, Pro Hac Vice, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL, Caleb C. Wolanek, Pro Hac Vice, Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Sarah D. Gordon, Pro Hac Vice, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC, for Defendant John Doe Corporation s 1-100.

OPINION AND ORDER

Steven D. Grimberg, United States District Court Judge

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Twin City Fire Insurance Company (Twin City) and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (HCIC) (collectively, the Writing Defendants) [ECF 44]; a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; Hartford Fire Insurance Company; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company; Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast; Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company; Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest; Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois; Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd.; and Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (collectively, the Non-Writing Defendants) [ECF 45]; and a motion to dismiss the nationwide and non-Georgia state subclass claims by the Writing Defendants [ECF 46]. For the following reasons, and with the aid of oral argument, the Writing Defendants’ initial motion is GRANTED and all other motions are DENIED AS MOOT .

I. BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff Roy H. Johnson, DDS is a dentist in Cobb County, Georgia who owns and practices at Plaintiff Windy Hill Dentistry, LLC (Windy Hill).² Plaintiff D. Casey Hart DDS, P.C. (Casey Hart), is also a dental office in Cobb County.³ Defendants are issuers of business insurance policies.⁴ Johnson and Windy Hill purchased a business insurance policy, No. 20 SBW AM7715 DV, from Twin City with a policy period running from June 27, 2019 through June 27, 2020 (the Windy Hill Policy).⁵ Casey Hart purchased a substantially similar business insurance policy, No. 20 SBW EZ4000 DV, from HCIC with a policy period running from September 1, 2019 through September 1, 2020 (the Casey Hart Policy).⁶ Although issued by two different entities, the pertinent language of the two policies is identical.⁷

Relevant here, the Policies contain two provisions in which the Writing Defendants agreed to provide coverage. First, the Writing Defendants agreed to a "Business Income Loss" provision to pay "for direct physical loss of or physical damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declaration ... caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss."⁸ Second, the Policies contain a "Civil Authority" provision in which the Writing Defendants agreed to pay "the actual loss of Business Income you sustain when access to your ‘scheduled premises’ is specifically prohibited by order of a civil authority as the direct result of a Covered Cause of Loss to property in the immediate area of your ‘scheduled premises.’ "⁹

In late-2019, a severe respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2—colloquially known as COVID-19—emerged and was thrust to the forefront of global consciousness. It is an impossible task to cogently articulate the scope of COVID-19; it is not an exaggeration that the grave risks posed by COVID-19 have radically altered many aspects of daily life across the globe. As a general timeline, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.¹⁰ On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump declared the outbreak of COVID-19 to be a national emergency.¹¹ In an attempt to slow the uncontrolled spread of this novel virus, many federal, state, and local governments took drastic action by implementing or recommending certain restrictions for individuals and businesses.¹² Most states issued some form of a shelter-in-place order.¹³ For example, on March 14, 2020, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp declared a Public Health State of Emergency.¹⁴ On April 2, 2020, Governor Kemp issued an Executive Order providing that "all residents and visitors of the State of Georgia are required to shelter in place within their homes or places of residence ... taking every possible precaution to limit social interaction to prevent the spread or infection of COVID-19 to themselves or any other person."¹⁵

As a practical matter, the person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 poses special challenges to the dental industry. On March 18, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended that all medical providers—including dentists—immediately delay all elective surgeries and all non-essential medical, surgical, and dental procedures.¹⁶ Similar recommendations were subsequently issued by other entities specifically governing dental practices, such as the American Dental Association (ADA) and American Medical Association (AMA).¹⁷ Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued guidance recommending the postponement of all elective and routine medical procedures, including dental.¹⁸

As a result of the widespread proliferation of COVID-19, Governor Kemp's Executive Order, and recommendations from various governing entities, Plaintiffs decided to suspend or substantially reduce their dentistry practices.¹⁹ As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered monetary losses.²⁰ They made claims with the Writing Defendants under the Policies for those losses, but have been denied coverage.²¹

Johnson and Windy Hill initiated this putative class action on May 8, 2020.²² On July 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, adding Casey Hart as a named Plaintiff.²³ Plaintiffs assert four claims against Defendants for breach of contract (Counts I–III) and declaratory judgment (Count IV).²⁴ In addition to their individual claims, Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class—or in the alternative, state-based subclasses—of individuals who purchased business insurance policies from Defendants; were subject to federal, state, or other directives to limit, suspend, or temporarily close their practices; but not reimbursed for their covered losses.²⁵ Defendants have filed three separate motions to dismiss.²⁶ On December 21, 2020, the Court heard oral argument from the parties on all outstanding motions.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible if "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

This pleading standard "does not require detailed factual allegations," but "requires more than unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusations." McCullough v. Finley , 907 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ) (brackets omitted). A complaint providing "mere ‘labels and conclusions,’ ‘formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action,’ or ‘naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement’ " will not suffice. Kinsey v. MLH Fin. Servs., Inc. , 509 F. App'x 852, 853 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). Although the "plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement at the pleading stage," it demands "enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the claim." Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp. , 605 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

III. DISCUSSION

a. The Writing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the...