In so ruling, the Court joins the growing number of judges who have rejected attempts by plaintiffs in insurance litigation cases arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic to take discovery into the relationship between insurance industry groups' model virus exclusions and the virus exclusion in the plaintiff's insurance contract. See, e.g., Boscov's Dep't Store, Inc. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., F.Supp.3d, 2021 WL 2681591, at *8 n.7 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Mareik Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., F.Supp.3d, 2021 WL 1940647, at *7 (E.D. Pa. 2021); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513, 524-25 (E.D. Pa. 2021); TAQ Willow Grove, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins., 513 F.Supp.3d 536, 547-48 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Moody v. Hartford Fin. Grp., Inc., 513 F.Supp.3d 496, 513 (E.D. Pa. 2021); see also, e.g., Body Physics v. Nationwide Ins., F.Supp.3d, 2021 WL 912815, at *5-6 (D.N.J. 2021); Del. Valley Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Merchs. Mut. Ins. Co., __F.Supp.3d__, 2021 WL 567994, at *6 (D.N.J. 2021); Cibus LLC v. Eagle W. Ins. Co., No. CV-20-00277-TUC-JGZ (DTF), 2021 WL 1566306, at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1100376 (D. Ariz. Mar. 23, 2021); Mortar & Pestle Corp. v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co., 508 F.Supp.3d 575, 582-83 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Border Chicken AZ LLC v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 501 F.Supp.3d 699, 706 (D. Ariz. 2020). A.

law, the Court finds that Abington Kids has failed to allege a plausible claim to coverage under the Policy. In doing so, the Court joins the scores of courts that have considered identical exclusions in insurance policies and have concluded that these exclusions are “unambiguous and clearly applicable ‘to COVID-19, which is caused by a coronavirus that causes physical illness and distress.'” Picone, 2022 WL 1537351, at *6 (quoting Body Physics, 524 F.Supp.3d at 380); see 44Hummelstown Associates, 542 F.Supp.3d at 340 (dismissing a claim for a declaration of coverage under an all-risk insurance policy for the insured's failure to plausibly allege physical loss of or damage to the covered premises stemming from COVID-19 and Governor Wolf's orders); Kahn, 517 F.Supp.3d at 321-23 (same); 1 S.A.N.T., Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., 513 F.Supp.3d 623 (W.D. Pa. 2021) (same); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (same); The Scranton Club v. Tuscarora Wayne Mut. Group, Inc., No. 20-CV-2469, 2021 WL 454498, at *10 (Pa. Com. Pl. Jan. 25, 2021) (same). First, the Virus Exclusion unambiguously provides that that Defendants will not cover any loss caused by or resulting from “any virus . . . or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness, or disease.”

Compare Moody, 513 F.Supp.3d at 512 (concluding that the plaintiff had not plausibly pleaded that the insurer made a statement to a regulator because the plaintiff did not allege that the insurer made the statement itself or that the ISO made the statement on the insurer's behalf), and Maggios Famous Pizza, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of the Sw., No. CV 20-2603, 2021 WL 6051562, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2021) (same), and ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513, 524-25 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (same), and Border Chicken AZ LLC v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 501 F.Supp.3d 699, at 706-07 (D. Ariz. 2020) (concluding that the plaintiff's “belief” that the ISO represented the defendant insurer without any supporting specific allegations of action or representation made by the insurer was insufficient under Iqbal pleading standards),

Pa. 2020); Newchops Rest. Comcast LLC v. Admiral Indem. Co., 507 F.Supp.3d 616, 618 (E.D. Pa. 2020); BSD-360, LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 580 F.Supp.3d 92, 94 (E.D. Pa. 2022); Big Red Mgmt. Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 579 F.Supp.3d 665, 667 (E.D. Pa. 2022); Frank Van's Auto Tag, LLC v. Selective Ins. Co. of the Se., 516 F.Supp.3d 450, 457 (E.D. Pa. 2021) Lansdale 329 Prop., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 537 F.Supp.3d 780, 781 (E.D. Pa. 2021); TAQ Willow Grove, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins., 513 F.Supp.3d 536, 547 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Spring House Tavern, Inc. v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 544 F.Supp.3d 517, 523-26 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Shantzer v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 531 F.Supp.3d 920, 924 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Tria WS LLC v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 F.Supp.3d 533, 540 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Ultimate Hearing Sols. II, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 549, 563 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Indep. Rest. Grp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 513 F.Supp.3d 525, 532 (E.D. Pa. 2021); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513, 520 (E.D. Pa. 2021); 4431, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos., 504 F.Supp.3d 368, 383 (E.D. Pa. 2020); Paul Glat MD, P.C. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 531 F.Supp.3d 908, 910 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Maggios Famous Pizza, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of the Sw., No. 20-2603, 2021 WL 6051562, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2021); Del. Valley Mgmt., LLC v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 572 F.Supp.3d 119, 124 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Boscov's Dep't Store, Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 546 F.Supp.3d 354, 359 (E.D. Pa. 2021). I

Courts presented with this issue in the context of COVID-19 insurance cases have uniformly held that neither COVID-19 nor the threat thereof causes physical loss of or damage to property. See, e.g.,Spring House Tavern, Inc. v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co. , 544 F.Supp.3d 517, 523-26 (E.D. Pa. 2021) ; Lansdale 329 Prop. , 537 F. Supp. 3d at 781 ; Shantzer v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. , 531 F. Supp. 3d 920, 925 (E.D. Pa. 2021) ; Tria WS LLC v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. , 530 F. Supp. 3d 533, 540–41 (E.D. Pa. 2021) ; Frank Van's Auto Tag , 516 F. Supp. 3d at 457 ; Ultimate Hearing Sols.II , 513 F. Supp. 3d at 558 ; Indep.Rest. Grp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London , 513 F. Supp. 3d 525, 532–33 (E.D. Pa. 2021) ; ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. , 513 F. Supp. 3d 513, 521 (E.D. Pa. 2021) ; Newchops Rest. Comcast LLC v. Admiral Indem. Co. , 507 F. Supp. 3d 616, 624 (E.D. Pa. 2020) ; Brian Handel D.M.D. , 499 F. Supp. 3d at 99–100. Here, Big Red has not sufficiently alleged facts supporting its allegation that the threat of COVID-19 actually caused physical loss of and/or damage to its properties.

2021); see also, e.g., Windber Hosp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-80, 2021 WL 1061849 (W.D. Pa. 2021); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Whiskey Flats Inc. v. Axis Ins. Co., 519 F.Supp.3d 231 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Brian Handel D. M.D., P.C v. Allstate Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 20-cv-3198, 2020 WL 6545893 (E.D. Pa. 2020); Kahn v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 517 F.Supp.3d 315 (M.D. Pa. 2021); 44 Hummelstown Assoc, LLC v. Am. Select Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02319, 2021 WL 2312778 (M.D. Pa. 2021). Absent direct physical loss or damage to Warwick's facilities, there is no triggering event for business income loss coverage under the Policy.

Here, there is no allegation that TCP shut its doors due to high concentrations of the Virus on its premises; rather, TCP merely complied with government orders to prevent the Virus from spreading further throughout the general population.See ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513, 519-23 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Rococo Steak, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 515 F.Supp.3d 1218, 1222-24 (M.D. Fla. 2021); Infinity Exhibits, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Known as Syndicate PEM 4000, 489 F.Supp.3d 1303, 1307-09 (M.D. Fla. 2020); 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 483 F.Supp.3d 828, 836 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Diesel Barbershop v. State Farm Lloyds, 479 F.Supp.3d 353, 360 (W.D. Tex. 2020); Brian Handel D.M.D., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 499 F.Supp.3d 95, 98-100 (E.D. Pa. 2020); Hillcrest Optical, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 497 F.Supp.3d 1203, 1209-12 (S.D. Ala. 2020); Henry's Louisiana Grill, Inc. v. Allied Ins. Co. of Am., 495 F.Supp.3d 1289, 1293-94 (N.D.Ga. 2020); see also OTG Mgmt. PHL LLC v. Emps. Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 21-1240, 2021 WL 3783261, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2021); Boscov's Dep't Store, Inc., v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., No. 20-03672, 2021 WL 2681591, at *6 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2021); Arash Emami, M.D., P.C., v. CNA & Transportation Ins. Co., No. 20-18792, 202

In fact, the Executive Orders expressly allowed Plaintiff to remain open to conduct emergency procedures, and employees were permitted to enter the building to perform their duties. Therefore, Plaintiff's dental office remained habitable and usable for business purposes, albeit in limited ways. SeeChelsea Ventures, LLC , 2021 WL 2529821, at *7 (finding that civil orders did not render insured property substantially unusable because the orders merely limited, but did not prevent, plaintiff from conducting business operations); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. , 513 F. Supp. 3d 513, 521-22 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (holding that a complaint alleging an optician's office was permitted to remain open for emergency procedures failed to allege conditions that "completely or near completely precluded operation of the premise as intended.") In conclusion, after conducting its own analysis of the Policy language and the relevant case law, the Court elects to follow the approach taken by the majority of courts that have considered similar, if not identical, insurance policy language in the context of COVID-19.

Notably, other courts have considered identical (and similar) virus exclusions and found them to be applicable to losses sustained as a result COVID-19-related closure orders. Analyzing an identical Virus Exclusion provision in Stern, a New Jersey district court held that “the [Policy's] language is explicit and plainly excludes from coverage any loss ‘caused directly or indirectly by . . . [the p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.'” Stern & Eisenberg, P.C. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 20-11277, 2021 WL 1422860, at *5 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2021) (citations omitted); see also Moody v. Hartford Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 20-2856, 2021 WL 135897, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021) (“The coronavirus is a virus, and the Policy explicitly excludes losses caused directly or indirectly by viruses.”); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-4238, 2021 WL 131282 at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021) (following Third Circuit precedent to reject ambiguity of an identical virus exclusion); TAQ Willow Grove, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins., No. 20-1863, 2021 WL 131555, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021) (same). The exclusion plainly applies here.

Accordingly, the civil orders did not render Plaintiffs’ property substantially unusable for business purposes. See St. Julian, 2021 WL 1049875, at *4 n.4 (holding that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the virus or the civil orders rendered its property substantially unusable, as it was able to continue business by selling wine online and offering curbside pickup); ATCM Optical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 513 F.Supp.3d 513, 521 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (holding that a complaint alleging that an optician's office was permitted to remain open for emergency procedures failed to allege conditions that "completely or near completely precluded operation of the premises as intended") (punctuation modified). Office of the Governor, Executive Order 2020-09: Temporary restrictions on the use of places of public accommodation, https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-521789--,00.html [https://perma.cc/E26L-U2RZ].