COVID19 and Business Interruption insurance

The unprecedented circumstances resulting from COVID-19 has amplified the need to clarify the uncertainty faced by small to medium-sized businesses over whether standard insurance policies cover business related losses.

As Australian Courts seek to determine whether business interruption policy wording ‘declared to be quarantinable diseases under the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth)’ should be read as ‘determined to be listed human diseases under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)’, the United Kingdom delve into similar and relevant policy issues.

The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others, [2021] UKSC 1

Facts of the case

Commencing a test case under the Markets Test Case Scheme, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) sought clarification from eight leading business interruption policy insurance providers as to the meaning and effect of four different clauses; ‘disease clauses’, ‘prevention access clauses’, ‘hybrid clauses’ and ‘trend clauses’.

‘Disease clauses’ appeared in sections of the insurance policy which provides business interruption cover in “consequence of or following or arising from the occurrence of a notifiable disease within a specified radius of the insured premises”.

Considered in a similar manner by both the High and Supreme Courts, the determination at the Supreme Court allowed for increased cover availability. It decided that “in order to show loss from business interruption of the insured business was proximately caused by one or more illness resulting from COVID-19, it is sufficient to prove that the interruption was a result of Government action taken in response to cases of disease which included at least one case of COVID-19 within the geographical area covered by the clause”.

In clarifying ‘prevention of access’ clauses, the words were interpreted to include cover for business interruption losses resulting from public authority intervention, either preventing or hindering the access or use of business premises.

Whilst the words ‘restrictions imposed’ had meant something expressed in mandatory terms, the Supreme Court determined that restrictions did not necessarily require the ‘force of law’ for the policy to apply. Where ‘inability to use’ had meant a complete inability to use the premises, it may also include the prevention of access to a discrete part of the business premises, depending on the wording of the insurance policy. Despite this, a mere impairment or hindrance of use would not be sufficient to satisfy an ‘inability to use’.

Hybrid clauses involving a combination of elements of both ‘disease clauses’ and ‘prevention of access clauses’, bestowed cover which would result by “restrictions imposed on the premises in relation to a notifiable disease”. Such conditions are applicable if the closure or restrictions placed upon such premises manifested from at least one case of COVID-19 within the specified radius of the insured premises.

‘Trend clauses’ were additionally clarified to apply to business interruption resulting from COVID-19, which generally provided for “business losses to be quantified by reference to what the financial performance of the business would have been had the insured peril not occurred”. This prevents insurers relying on a trend clause to reduce the indemnity on the basis that losses were caused equally by other perils, including COVID-19.

What does this mean for Australian businesses?

Whilst the UK Court’s interpretation on such insurance clauses is not strictly binding on Australian Courts, the decision allows for small to medium-sized businesses to assess whether their business interruption cover may insure their losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Whilst the Australian case, HDI Global Specialty SE v Wonkana No. 3 Pty Ltd trading as Austin Tourist Park [2020] NSWCA 296, seeks to clarify some policy wording, it does not delve into business interruption issues to the extent of the UK test case. Consequently, it is likely that Australia will need to run a second test case requiring further clarification of the construction of particular clauses.

Should the Insurance Council of Australia’s appeal to the High Court be denied, Australian insurance companies will be required to make payments to policyholders under the interpreted policies subject to any additional arguments the insurers may seek to rely upon.

Small and medium sized businesses are encouraged to seek early assessment of their policy to determine their eligibility to receive policy benefits for losses sustained resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

To make an appointment please contact Danielle Snell or Robert McGirr.

Share
Email
Print

Get in touch

With us personally, it is just one more way we’re different.

Danielle Snell

CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER

.

Robert McGirr

CO-FOUNDER AND PARTNER

.

"

"I just wanted to thank you all for the hard work and dedication you put into my Workcover case. A special thanks to Aggie whom I'm glad I chose to support me."

Personal Injury

Shane

I just wanted to thank you all for the hard work and dedication you put into my Workcover case.

A special thanks to Aggie whom I’m glad I chose to support me and give me the step by step instructions on how to go about proving my case for a result in my favour.

Thanks again for all your advice.

"

"Aggie is the best lawyer in Common Law Claims I have ever worked with. Aggie helped me achieve an extraordinary outcome."

Common Law Claim

Ian

Aggie is the best lawyer in Common Law Claims I have ever worked with. Having seen a couple of large Law Firms l felt let down, being quickly shown the front door. Luckily for me a friend suggested seeing Aggie Vlahos (Partner).

Having engaged Aggie Vlahos gave me the confidence to continue with the injuries l knew were caused by heavy physical and repetitive work. I am also indebted to Brendan Johnson (Barrister) for his outstanding efforts!

She explained everything in a way I could easily understand and always got back to me quickly when I had questions even outside her working hours.

Aggie helped me achieve an extraordinary outcome. However, only charged fair fees.

If someone is seeking a legal help, I highly recommend Aggie Vlahos and Elit Lawyers.

P.S. Thanks to you so much Aggie

"

"I had the good luck to be recommended to Aggie Vlahos for handling my Estate Litigation Case. Through Aggie I achieved a very satisfying result."

Estate Litigation

Jan

I had the good luck to be recommended to Aggie Vlahos for handling my Estate Litigation Case. She was always available to me, no matter how big or small my concern was. She was kind, patient, easy to talk to and very understanding regarding my troubles.

The case was resolved within only 5 months, which I was grateful for. Through Aggie I achieved a very satisfying result.

I would have no hesitation in recommending her to others.

 

"

"If you want a safe, caring, professional group of lawyers and company, look no further than Aggie Vlahos and Elit Lawyers."

Family Law Matter

Michael

Thank you to Aggie Vlahos (Partner) and the staff at Elit Law, also James Eley (Barrister). You did a marvelous job in representing me in relation to my family matter and most importantly caring about me and providing a secure environment for me to navigate a very difficult situation.

The result you achieved was nothing short of amazing. The professionalism displayed on the day by Aggie and James blew me away. With their invaluable guidance and support we achieved a extremely favourable result.

If you want a safe, caring, professional group of lawyers and company, look no further than Elit Lawyers.

Great people, Great Service, Great Company.

 

"

"The best of the best plaintiff lawyers against insurance companies. We had a very tough and complex case and Danielle and her team settled with the insurance company for an optimal outcome."

Insurance Policy Holder

Home owner

The best of the best plaintiff lawyers team against insurance companies.

We had a very tough and complex case against insurance company that we lost our home and contents.  After disappointing and frustrating process from another law firm and firing them we found Danielle Snell and her team.

They are very dedicated, knowledgeable, passionate and possess great communication skills.  We couldn’t ask for more and settled with a optimal outcome.

"

"It’s great to be able to confidently refer clients to someone who can help and support them, and to feel that they are receiving the best service."

Senior Adviser

Financial Planner

We are so glad to have you in our referral channel.

It’s great to be able to confidently refer clients to someone who can help and support them, and to feel that they are receiving the best service.

Previous
Next

Can't find what you're looking for?