Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • Sections
  • News

Insurers told to payout on business interruption claims

Open-access content Tuesday 15th September 2020 — updated 3.42pm, Wednesday 16th September 2020
Insurers told by High Court to payout for business interruption claims

UK insurers must payout on the majority of business interruption claims made during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has ruled today in a landmark test case.

The decision means that 370,000 policyholders – mostly small businesses – who suffered losses due to lockdown restrictions could share billions of pounds in damages.

Judges ruled that most “disease” and/or “denial of access” clauses in a representative sample of insurance policy wordings should have provided cover during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The test case was brought forward by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to clarify the scope of business interruption insurance, and insurers have agreed to have any appeal heard on an expedited basis.

“Today’s judgment is a significant step in resolving the uncertainty being faced by policyholders,” said Christopher Woolard, interim chief executive of the FCA. “Coronavirus is causing substantial loss and distress to businesses and many are under immense financial strain to stay afloat. 

“Our aim throughout this court action has been to get clarity for as wide a range of parties as possible, as quickly as possible and today’s judgment removes a large number of those roadblocks to successful claims, as well as clarifying those that may not be successful.”

Insurers have disputed liability for business interruption during the COVID-19 pandemic, with most policies for small businesses only containing basic cover as a consequence of property damage.

In response, the FCA selected a representative sample of policy wordings issued by eight insurers for the High Court to review. The judgment is complex, and runs to over 150 pages, but the FCA’s legal team at Herbert Smith Freehills have published a summary on their website.

Although the decision will bring welcome news for many policyholders, it did not confirm that the eight defendant insurers are liable across all of the 21 types of policy wording in the sample.

However, the test case did clarify that the COVID-19 pandemic and government and public response were a single cause of the covered loss, which is a key requirement for claims to be paid.

“The judgement might also lead to more claims being made in the coming weeks and, in the longer term, these rulings will have an impact on how insurance policies are worded and potentially sold,” commented Mohammad Khan, UK general insurance leader at PwC.

“There will be a renewed focus on policy wording standardisation which may impact the freedom of brokers to set slightly different wordings for their clients.”

Meanwhile, financial services company DBRS Morningstar said that the High Court decision could cost insurers up to £10bn, and may also have international consequences.

Marcos Alvarez, senior vice president and head of insurance, said: “The implication of the High Court decision could extend beyond the British insurance industry given the level of integration between insurers and reinsurers on a global scale, the relevance of the London Market, and the common-law precedent that could be used in other jurisdictions.”


 

Author: Chris Seekings

Image credit: iStock

Also filed in
News
Topics
General Insurance

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Life Reinsurance – Client Manager/Senior Manager

London (Central)
£ excellent + bonus + benefits
Reference
143661

Life Actuarial Analyst

South East / hybrid with 3 days per week office-based
£ dependent upon experience
Reference
143660

Investment Associate Consultant

Flexible / hybrid
£ dependent upon experience
Reference
143659
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ