China sued for allegedly covering up Covid-19 to protect economy and superpower status

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Florida against the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which alleges that China covered up the eventual Covid-19 pandemic for its “own economic self-interest” at the expense of the rest of the world. The plaintiffs are suing China over alleged negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for conducting ultra-hazardous activity, and public nuisance. Apart from the Chinese state, the named plaintiffs are also China’s National Health Commission, Ministry of Emergency Management, Ministry of Civil Affairs, the government of Hubei Province and the government of Wuhan. “The PRC and the other defendants knew that Covid-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic, yet slowly acted, proverbially put their head in the sand, and/or covered it up for their own economic self-interest,” reads the action filed by Florida law for Berman & Berman. “The conduct of the defendants has caused injury and incalculable harm to named plaintiffs and class members, and such injury and harm will only multiply in coming days and weeks. The defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause personal injuries and deaths, as well as other damages,” it continues. The suit claims that the PRC and other defendants, acted in their own economic self- interest and sought to protect their place as a superpower. As a result, they failed to report the outbreak as quickly as they could have, underreported cases and failed to contain the outbreak despite knowing the seriousness of the situation. The suit claims that, among other acts and omissions, the defendants, or some of them, censored eight doctors on 1 January 2020 from speaking about the outbreak and its dangers. “Even after the first death on 9 January, they continued to downplay the dangers and assured the public that the situation was not serious and that everything was under control. It took 17 days from the time Chinese researchers discovered the Covid-19 genome sequence for defendants to report the findings to their worldwide peers. They knew Covid-19 was spread human to human by 3 January but told the public otherwise, and would not confirm the ease of human-to-human transmission until 20 January, after the virus had already spread beyond China,” it claims. “China President Xi Jinping originally stated that he directed officials to contain the virus on 7 January, but it has since emerged that he did not do that and that he actually waited until 22 January to do direct containment, and still did not make any efforts public until it was too late. Despite early January deaths, they would only attribute the deaths to pneumonia, instead of the virus, and continued to downplay its dangers. Wuhan’s leaders held a public dinner for over 40,000 families on 18 January, despite knowing the ease of human-to-human spread of the virus,” it continues. The action also claims that there are only two known Chinese government bioweapon research labs in the PRC and one of them – the National Biosafety Laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – is, as its name suggests, in Wuhan, close in proximity to the marketplace where Covid-19 allegedly originated. “It is considered China’s only 'Level 4' microbiology lab – meaning it deals with the deadliest of viruses. An alternative theory here is that Covid-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab because of lax controls, or that Chinese researchers sold lab animals to the marketplace in question, as researchers have been known to do in China, instead of cremating them as PRC law requires. In either case, such conduct, as an alternative theory, has caused the pandemic,” it claims. “The defendants’ conduct has set off a worldwide pandemic assault that is triggering community by community and causing widespread injuries and damages. In short, the defendants’ conduct has been egregious and clearly contrary to the precepts of humanity, and/or their conduct is prohibited by the internal laws of the PRC and its provincial and municipal governments, and never should have been allowed in the first place,” states the action. So why should such an action against the Chinese state theoretically – and it seems that the word theoretically should be heavily emphasised here – take place in Florida? According to Berman & Berman, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The court further has jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq, and particularly the exceptions of § 1605(a)(2) (for acts outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the defendants, that cause a direct effect in the United States), and § 1605(a)(5) (for money damages for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious acts or omissions of the defendants, or of any official or employee of the defendants while acting within the scope of their office or employment), argues the law firm. It adds that there is no “discretionary acts” exception to jurisdiction under the FSIA, as defendants have acted “clearly contrary to the precepts of humanity, and/or their conduct is prohibited by the internal laws of the PRC and its provincial and municipal governments”, they add. “This court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the defendants have caused tortious harm to named plaintiffs and class members in the United States and Florida and this district, and have sufficient contacts in Florida and this district to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this court permissible,” continues the action. It seems unlikely, however, that Chinese President Xi Jinping will turn up in Florida for his day in court.

China sued for allegedly covering up Covid-19 to protect economy and superpower status

Want to read this article?

Read Next

UN launches new net-zero insurance forum to replace NZIA

The Netherlands sued over PFAS contamination

Marsh launches global alternative risk solutions practice

European Parliament approves regulation to tackle forced labour

Absenteeism drops dramatically in France

UN launches new net-zero insurance forum to replace NZIA

The Netherlands sued over PFAS contamination

Marsh launches global alternative risk solutions practice

European Parliament approves regulation to tackle forced labour

Absenteeism drops dramatically in France

Want to read this article?

Read Next

UN launches new net-zero insurance forum to replace NZIA

The Netherlands sued over PFAS contamination

Marsh launches global alternative risk solutions practice

European Parliament approves regulation to tackle forced labour

Absenteeism drops dramatically in France

Related Articles