header-logo header-logo

Businesses given green light for Covid claims

11 September 2024
Issue: 8085 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial , Insurance / reinsurance , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

Thousands of companies are entitled to claim business interruption insurance for losses caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court of Appeal has held in a landmark decision

In London International Exhibition Centre v RSA & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026, the court heard six expedited test cases concerning policies providing cover for disease occurring ‘at the premises’ of the policyholder.

Handing down their judgment this week, the court dismissed insurers’ appeals on the issues of causation, knowledge and the relevance of the requirement for closure of the premises to be on the approval or advice of a medical officer of health. Lords Justice Males and Popplewell and Lady Justice Andrews confirmed businesses with an ‘at the premises’ disease clause in their policies are entitled to claim an indemnity for their loss of gross profit caused by the UK government’s response to the pandemic.

Erich Kurtz, senior associate at Hugh James, which acted for ‘Why Not Bar’, said the judgment was ‘another crucial step in providing vital legal certainty’ to businesses.

Aaron Le Marquer, partner at Stewarts, acting for ExCel, said: ‘Many policyholders who were previously denied cover may in fact have significant payments available to them under their insurance policies.’

Stewarts is also acting in Bath Racecourse & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance, due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in January 2025. It will determine whether insurers can deduct furlough—government payments for furloughed employees during lockdown—from Covid business insurance payouts.

In 2021, the Supreme Court clarified what policyholders with a ‘radius’ clause must prove in order to recover business interruption losses resulting from their premises closing due to government action on Covid-19, in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) [2021] UKSC 1. The case concerned loss due to disease occurring within a specified radius of the policyholder’s premises.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

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