Skip to main content

Insight article

December 24, 2021

Business Interruption Insurance

After the Supreme Court's judgment earlier in the year, what are the legal and practical impacts of the FCA's business interruption insurance test case?

On 15 January 2021, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in FCA v Arch Insurance, a test case concerning the recoverability of losses suffered by businesses under business interruption insurance policies during the lockdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court’s decision ruled in favour of the policyholders relying on business interruption insurance policies.

The FCA brought the test case seeking clarity over some business interruption insurance policies’ wording concerning the Covid-19 pandemic claims by policyholders.

The business interruption insurance wording in Arch Insurance’s policies required the outbreak of a notifiable disease to have happened on the insured premises or within a defined proximity, for example, a 25-mile radius. However, the insurers argued that since the lockdown was a national measure to contain the COVID-19 virus, the business interruption would still have happened even if no COVID-19 cases had occurred within the insured premises or defined proximity.

Insurers relied on the “but for” test of causation. For example, would the loss of business still have happened but for the occurrence of a COVID-19 case in the insured premise or geographical radius?

The Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ argument explaining that the “but for” test was inadequate in this case; there are situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where an insuring clause may respond to many related but uninsured events.

The Supreme Court offered a legal limitation to cause-in-fact or “but for” by reiterating the principle of proximate causation. Every single case of COVID-19 in the country qualified as a proximate cause of loss because each case equally contributed to the national lockdown. Therefore, Any COVID-19 case in the radius of the business was as causative as those outside it. Thus, the causation element was satisfied if there was a single COVID-19 case in the radius of a business.

Positive news for policyholders?

The FCA estimates that approximately 370,000 policyholders are affected by the judgment of the test case. For some of these policyholders, the impact of the judgment has already been positive in terms of financial recovery. The FCA has confirmed that insurers have made £1bn pay-outs to small businesses following the Supreme Court’s decision. However, the delay in recovering any losses, months following the businesses’ closure during the lockdown, means that the difficulties faced by these businesses have not faded.

In addition, many businesses are battling over their claims with insurers who argue that the Supreme Court’s decision does not bind them.

One of the biggest concerns for policyholders is that their arguments for business interruption insurance losses are based on contractual interpretation, which requires court involvement to resolve.

Corporate partner, Victoria Holland, says

“This offers a warning to policyholders: scrutinise your policy’s wording before launching a formal claim.”

If you have any concerns over your business interruption insurance, contact Victoria Holland today.

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...

  • 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

  • Roman Cassini, February 2025
    “Peter Wright – highly recommended solicitor, helped us though a complicated flat sale with consummate professionalism.”

Read more
Send this to a friend