The long-awaited judgment in the “At the Premises” (“ATP”) judgment has now been handed down, and the expected policyholder-friendly outcome marks another welcome milestone in the journey towards bringing these cases to a conclusion, even if the route by which the Court of Appeal got there took some less expected twists and turns.
While there were a number of other issues on appeal, this article focuses on causation, which continues to be a key battleground for insurers and their policyholders.
Background
By way of a brief recap, policies with clauses providing cover for cases of Covid-19 “at the premises” were not considered by the Divisional and Supreme Court in the FCA Test Case, which instead considered a range of policies including those which provided cover for a disease occurring within a specified radius of an insured premises.
In the FCA Test Case, the Supreme Court considered causation at some length, finding that “[212]…in order to show that loss from interruption of the insured business was proximately caused by one or more occurrences of 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.”
However, insurers resisted the application of that analysis to ATP policy wordings, leading to this litigation considering “the critical question” as to whether the Supreme Court’s reasoning in respect of causation could properly be applied to such wordings. At first instance, the answer was a decisive yes (and some further background can be found in our previous article [1]). Insurers appealed, and this judgment is from that appeal which was heard earlier this year.
Insurers’ Causation Arguments
Despite a number of common causation issues to all of the appeals, the primary case advanced differed between the insurers, as follows:
- ExCeL & Kaizen Insurers – their position was that there would be cover only when an occurrence of disease at the premises was a “distinct effective cause” of the closure of the premises (i.e. it must be a known occurrence of the disease at the premises to which the government or local authority was responding);
- Hairlab & Why Not Insurers – they took the position that only a stricter “but for” test applied (requiring the occurrence of a disease at the premises to be a necessary and sufficient cause of the subsequent restrictions – the court recognised this test would seldom be satisfied); and
- Mayfair Insurers – whose position was that the authority had to know about the suffering of disease at the particular premises and had to take it into account in reaching its decision (although it need only contribute to that decision).
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
In setting out their positions, the insurers argued that the correct approach was to begin with the interpretation of the policies in issue, having regard to their language and context, rather than asking whether those clauses differ materially from the radius clauses considered by the Supreme Court in the FCA Test Case. The Court of Appeal agreed there was some force in that.
However, ultimately that change of approach proved to make very little difference to the outcome, with the Court of Appeal finding that:
- The nature of the insured peril informs the causation test agreed between the parties, which is not derived from other perils mentioned in the insuring clause (such as vermin infestation), but instead focuses on the particular peril in question.
- In that regard, notifiable diseases spread rapidly and widely, with the potential to cause interruption over a wide area. The circumstances that would lead to a closure of an insured premises are unlikely to be in response to an isolated incident: instead, it must have been contemplated that a closure or restrictions imposed by a relevant authority would be in response to an outbreak as a whole over a particular area, whether that be local or national. Furthermore, the worse and more widespread the outbreak of the disease, the more likely it would be that such restrictions would be imposed.
- Accordingly, a “but for” test could not have been the intended approach to causation, as the parties must have intended for the causation requirement to be satisfied if the occurrence at the premises was one of a number of causes of the closure.
- It would be unrealistic to suppose that the authority would apply its mind to identifying a particular case of a disease at a particular premises. In the case of a serious outbreak, a relevant authority would know that there had been a number of occurrences of a disease (perhaps over a certain area, or affecting a particular kind of premises within an area) and it would simply react to those occurrences by imposing restrictions accordingly.
- The finding of fact by both the Divisional and Supreme Court in the FCA Test Case (that “each of the individual cases of illness resulting from Covid-19 which had occurred by the date of any Government action was a separate and equally effective cause of that action”), applies equally to the ATP claims, both in respect of the cases which were known about, and those which were “known unknowns”.
Comment
This appeal judgment is a welcome development for policyholders and confirms that despite the differences between radius and ATP clauses, it may not materially affect the nature of the casual link that must be established, which is a matter of policy interpretation and intention.
Policyholders with the benefit of ATP cover can now expect a recovery from their insurers, although notably a lack of clarity remains about the evidence required to demonstrate the presence of a case of Covid-19 at the premises, and it is to be hoped that insurers take a pragmatic approach that avoids this issue becoming the next battleground.
Now that the ATP appeal has concluded, and with the tide very much in favour of the policyholders, the Court of Appeal will be considering similar causation arguments along with furlough in the upcoming appeals arising out of the Gatwick Investment Ltd & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2] group of cases.
Watch this space.
Anthony McGeough [3] is a Senior Associate at Fenchurch Law