header-logo header-logo

15 September 2020
Issue: 7902 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial , Covid-19 , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Business interruption case will help ‘thousands’

The High Court has clarified key issues regarding insurance cover for business interruption caused by COVID-19, in a landmark decision

The test case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA v Arch Insurance & Ors [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm), will make it easier for thousands of businesses to make a business interruption claim. The court set out the order of circumstances as the pandemic unfolded and considered policy coverage and the correct construction of terms in relation to various specimen wordings and illustrative scenarios.

Michael Frisby, partner at Stevens & Bolton, said the judgment ‘provides clear guidance to identify which claims are covered in the wake of the pandemic.

‘It will have the effect of reducing the disputes over coverage arising from the pandemic, and should also help resolve some individual disputes. For insurers, the importance of this case is clear when you look at the numbers: it’s been estimated that members of the Association of British Insurers will pay out £1.2bn in the wake of COVID-19 and 75% of this will be for Business Interruption.’

Frisby praised the financial regulator for ‘acting speedily and effectively’ on the issue.

‘For the insured, without the FCA, they would have been left to fight an expensive, lengthy and complex dispute on their own to obtain resolution of the issues raised,’ he said.

‘Small enterprises with little funds or litigation experience were pitted against deep-pocketed and experienced insurers. But the FCA stepped up to the plate. By representing these smaller businesses, there was an equality of arms between claimant and defendant.’

Devonshires partner Stephen Netherway said the judgment ‘gives a much needed lifeline to struggling businesses across the UK and could prevent many from going bankrupt.

‘It provides for many a basis for presenting their COVID-19 business losses under their commercial insurances.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll