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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll