header-logo header-logo

04 January 2021
Issue: 7917 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Insurance / reinsurance , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Test case reassures on COVID insurance

Lawyers have hailed a Supreme Court judgment on COVID-19 insurance cover, which could save thousands of jobs

The test case, Financial Conduct Authority & Ors v Arch Insurance [2021] UKSC 1, concerned the extent of coverage for business interruption under standard policies. Handing down judgment last week, the court considered 21 sample wordings as well as issues of causation, providing clarity for small businesses affected by restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as the particular policies chosen for the test case, the judgment could potentially affect ‘some 700 types of policies across over 60 different insurers and 370,000 policyholders,’ the Justices said in their judgment.

The proceedings were brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), representing the policyholders, under the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme. The Justices looked at disease clauses, prevention of access clauses, hybrid clauses and trends clauses. They dismissed the insurers’ appeals and allowed the FCA’s appeals.

Stephen Netherway, partner at Devonshires, said: ‘Business owners across the UK will be jubilant at this incredibly important, final court judgment that will potentially see hundreds of millions of pounds paid out to companies in desperate need.

‘The knock-on effect of this landmark judgement, which brings this legal battle to a close, could see thousands of jobs and livelihoods being saved. Had the insurers won it would have spelled further, fatal, economic misery for those just surviving businesses.’

Dene Rowe, partner at insurance law firm Keoghs, said: ‘The focus will invariably turn to the speed of implementing the judgement and, with insurers now facing a potential avalanche of claims from policyholders, it is likely that insurers will require a technology focused approach to ensure the prompt settlement of claims.

‘Failure to respond in an accelerated way will likely risk a major reputational risk to commercial insurance brands.’

 

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