Foggan and Sanders did not respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the policyholders—Shelby Guilbert, a partner at McGuireWoods in Atlanta; Adam Levitt of Chicago's DiCello Levitt Gutzler; and W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston—also did not respond.

The multidistrict litigation involves 57 cases brought against Society in six states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee and Wisconsin. Society is based in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.

In his Feb. 22, 2021, opinion, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang in the Northern District of Illinois allowed a bellwether group of policyholders, including Big Onion Tavern Group, Valley Lodge Corp. and Rising Dough Inc., to pursue the case. The ruling was among the first to decide whether businesses can sue their insurers for economic losses they suffered when governments ordered them to shut down. Business interruption coverage is among the most litigious issues to arise out of the COVID-19 pandemic, with about 1,700 lawsuits filed against insurers.

Since Chang's ruling, several federal circuit courts of appeal have issued opinions, and high courts in several states also have ruled on the matter.

At issue in many of the cases, like those against Society, is whether COVID-19 or the shutdowns constituted a "direct physical loss of or damage to" property, as defined in the language of its business interruption insurance policies.

Chang denied Society's attempt to appeal his decision to the Seventh Circuit, but, on Dec. 13, the judge asked both sides to brief on the impact of four new decisions from the Seventh Circuit that concluded no coverage existed.

Representing policyholder plaintiffs, Guilbert called the decisions "misguided."

"It is not controlling on any aspect of this case, which should be allowed to proceed to trial without further delay and obstruction of the discovery process by Society," he wrote.

He also insisted the policy language before the Seventh Circuit, which reviewed contracts from other insurers, wasn't the same as that in Society's contracts but suggested Chang could certify to the Illinois Supreme Court the meaning of "direct physical loss of or damage to" property.

In its position statement, Society said the Seventh Circuit's opinions are binding, particularly since 44 of the cases are governed by Illinois law.

"This court's bellwether decision left open whether the presence of the virus, including on surfaces, would constitute physical damage to property," Sanders wrote. "The Seventh Circuit has now conclusively answered that question and held that it does not."

Society later notified Chang of subsequent decisions, including those by the Seventh Circuit and the Illinois Court of Appeals. In a March 18 notice of supplemental authority, its lawyers cited 58 decisions favoring insurers since filing its position statement, including 14 decisions from federal circuit courts of appeal and three state appellate courts.

"To date, every federal circuit court and state appellate court to have ruled on these issues have found no coverage and ruled in favor of insurers," they wrote.

In Wednesday's filing, Society cited decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Sixth circuits, as well as by the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Iowa Supreme Court, federal district courts in Tennessee and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Those decisions should apply to all the cases in the multidistrict litigation, Society's lawyers wrote.

"There is no basis to delay this same ruling here," they wrote. "In its bellwether decision, this court determined that there is no material difference between the laws of Illinois, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin on these insurance contract interpretation issues."