Skip to main content

News story

January 31, 2021

Pandemic insurance claims set for settlement following ruling

As coronavirus continues its freeze on normal life, with strict lockdown measures back in place, many businesses will breathe a sigh of relief following January 2021's Supreme Court ruling confirming when business interruption insurance policies should pay out during a pandemic.

Lockdown and tier restrictions since March 2020 have seen many businesses temporarily closing or making significant operational reductions for weeks or months at a time, resulting in huge damage to their operations and loss of income.

Many companies had made insurance claims but were refused a payout when insurers argued the pandemic was not covered by their business interruption policy wording. But now, thousands have been told they are covered for losses caused by the pandemic after the ruling by Britain’s highest court.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others clears the way for millions of pounds to be paid for business interruption cover for losses caused by infectious diseases.

The case related to policies which did not explicitly specify which infectious diseases were covered and was brought by the Financial Conduct Authority as a test case, representing policyholders with 21 different policy wordings, to try and resolve the dispute over when compensation should be paid.

These include whether it was due if a business closed in line with government guidance, rather than as a legal requirement, and whether losses could be claimed for the overall impact of the pandemic, not just where cases of the disease were known to have occurred in a geographic radius of the business.

Typically, the policy may say that the claim must relate to a notifiable disease within a radius of 25 miles; generally, businesses could not prove that their losses were resulting from the disease occurring in that radius, so their claims were being refused.

Commercial Litigation partner and Head of Dispute Resolution, M. Qaiser Khanzada, said:

“Perhaps the most important aspect of the court’s judgment is the ruling that compensation should be related to what a business would have generated in normal times, rather than the potentially reduced losses during the pandemic. This will be very welcome news to those businesses with this sort of policy in place and was significant in overturning an earlier ruling and setting a precedent for the future.

Not all business interruption policies include cover for infectious diseases, but anyone who believes they now have a valid claim must have it agreed by their insurers. This will require the business to demonstrate how their losses are comprised and how they are covered by the wording in their own policy, as each policy tends to have its own unique wording requiring interpretation. It’s not an easy task and we are likely to see further individual legal battles ahead.”

According to the Association of British Insurance Brokers (ABI) pandemic insurance is not generally available anywhere in the world and most business cover is restricted to standard commercial insurance policies to cover against day-to-day risks such as fire, flood, theft and accidents involving employees.

The ABI has estimated that insurers in the UK will pay out over £1.2 billion in claims related to the pandemic, of which £900 million will be for business interruption.

Even where businesses have business interruption cover, few choose one that provides for claims due to a notifiable or infectious disease and those that do will usually find a list of the specific diseases covered. Policies often only apply when the disease is present at the business premises to cover the interruption to trade caused by an illness such as Legionnaires’ disease or Norovirus and where the building needs to be closed and cleaned to deal with the specific incident.

If your insurer has refused a claim under your business interruption insurance policy due to the current Pandemic, speak to M. Qaiser Khanzada today to explore the validity of the reasons for the refusal.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more
  • Navigating the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023: What it means for your business
    The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (the Act) represents a significant shift in the UK's approach to combating economic crime, improving corporate transparency, and anti-mo


    Read more
  • Blowing kisses, not boundaries
    Tribunal clears air on workplace etiquette.


    Read more
  • Estate planning: How not to make mincemeat of it!
    The High Court has confirmed that a will handwritten on the back of two cardboard food packages is legally binding.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Leann Paris, March 2025
    “From the beginning to the end, the support we have received throughout the case with all the staff members has been far more than we expected, we got kept up to date with every single matter, I have had stressful few years but Charlotte and he

  • C Smith, March 2025
    “As executor of a will it was a relief for a solicitor to act on my behalf as though no disputes it was still a lengthy and complex process. It was dealt with mostly by Charlotte B. who kept me informed at all times. She explained the process c

  • Marc, March 2025
    “RIAA Barker Gillette were engaged to handle a real estate transaction with unusual circumstances. As a non-UK resident unfamiliar with English conveyancing procedures, I felt completely satisfied with the depth of the information and explanati

  • Leigh, March 2025
    “Instructed Martin on my first property purchase. He was a delight to work with, kept me informed and updated regularly. It was an incredibly smooth and quick process. Couldn’t be happier.”

  • Ms Brownell, March 2025
    “Patrick was amazing from start to finish. He made the process so easy, and explained each step in detail ahead of time so I’d understand what would happen and when. He was incredibly organized and noted every detail, calling out things t

Read more
Send this to a friend