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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

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