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

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