header-logo header-logo

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

Supreme Court boosts business & jobs with COVID insurance ruling

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 this week, the court considered 21 sample wordings as well as causation, providing clarity for small businesses affected by the 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

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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll