header-logo header-logo

21 June 2023
Issue: 8030 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

COVID-struck businesses win insurance victory

Businesses that suffered losses during the pandemic have won a landmark COVID-19 business interruption test case against insurers.

In a 363-page ground-breaking judgment, London International Exhibition Centre v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance and others [2023] EWHC 1481 (Comm), Mr Justice Jacobs provided clarity on the triggering of policies during the pandemic.

Iryna O’Reilly, partner at Barings, representing six claimants in the case, said: ‘This remarkable triumph, being the second test-case following the Financial Conduct Authority test case in the Supreme Court [FCA v Arch [2021] UKSC 1], sets a precedent that will impact thousands of policyholders and small and medium-sized enterprise owners.

‘Small businesses encounter numerous challenges when pursuing claims against insurers due to the devastating impact of COVID-19. These businesses have either closed down or faced stringent government restrictions, preventing them from fully recovering from the pandemic.’

The insurers argued the Supreme Court’s ruling applied only to radius clauses, which cover events within a specified radius external to the premises, and therefore did not apply to ‘at the premises’ (ATP) clauses, which cover matters arising at the premises themselves.

Finding in favour of the claimants, however, Jacobs J said: ‘Given that the radius can be shrunk from 25 miles, to one mile, to “the vicinity”, without making any difference to the causation analysis, there is no reason why it cannot be further shrunk from the vicinity of the premises to the premises itself.’

Hugh James senior associate Erich Kurtz, representing claimant Why Not Bar, said: ‘The decision emphatically resolves one of the most contentious issues between businesses and their insurers in this field—whether cover exists in principle when the UK government imposed national lockdown where businesses can show COVID-19 occurred or manifested “at their premises”.’

Issue: 8030 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-details

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