header-logo header-logo

11 August 2011
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Riots: what to do next?

Do not delay in seeking damages advises expert

Businesses and property owners affected by the looting and disturbance in London and major UK cities this week may be able to file insurance claims for damage caused by terrorism as well as for riot damage losses, say solicitors.

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain partner Stuart White warns businesses that most insurers require claims for riot damage to be made within seven days, or the claim may be rejected. This is because the insurer can then make a claim in the policy-holder’s name against the police under the Riots (Damages) Act 1886—but must do so within 14 days of the damage occurring.

Businesses without property insurance may be able to recover their losses directly from the police under 1886 Act.

White warns that any delay introduces “an unnecessary risk”.  However, he adds that compensation under the Act would not usually extend to financial losses while the business is unable to trade—this would normally only be recoverable by businesses with business interruption insurance.

Joanna Bhatia of the LexisPSL property team says businesses could also argue there was a political element—an anarchist or anti-capitalist basis—to the riots and claim for damage caused by terrorism.

Most commercial buildings insurance and business interruption policies provide cover against terrorist risks only up to £100,000 per event, he said, after which cover must be obtained from the Pool Reinsurance Company.

“Damage must be caused by an action certified by the Treasury as an act of terrorism,” she says.

“Insurance companies may have difficulty convincing Pool Re that the recent riots come under their definition of terrorism, despite the fact that some rioters have been reported as confirming that they were looting as a protest against taxes. The Pool Re definition is narrower than other definitions.

“Property owners may, therefore, decide that a safer bet is to claim under other heads in their general policy which will be drawn more widely (for example, under the malicious damage head).”

Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll