FCA Test Case Update – Judgment
Today’s judgment in the FCA’s Test Case on Covid-19 Business Interruption coverage has provided some welcome good news for many policyholders – as well as disappointing findings for others. The court’s findings were very clearly divided between the policyholders seeking coverage under Disease clauses, and those claiming under Prevention of Access or similar extensions.
Disease
With the exception of two of the QBE wordings under consideration, it is unquestionable that the judgment is favourable for those policyholders that have one of the Disease Wordings that has been assessed as part of the FCA Test Case. Critically, the court found that the occurrence of the disease did not need to occur only within the radius contemplated in the policy. Provided that the occurrence of the disease extended into the specified radius, the coverage would be triggered. This has been one of the first coverage issues that policyholders have had to overcome, and which insurers have strongly resisted.
Furthermore, for those policyholders that do not have the benefit of the specific Disease Wordings looked at the FCA Test Case, but instead some other Disease wording, the consistency of the findings is likely to provide persuasive authority to support the ongoing claims under those other wordings.
Prevention of Access and Public Authority wordings
The position, however, is surprisingly less favourable for the majority of those policyholders with Prevention of Access and Public Authority Wordings that were considered as part of the FCA Test Case.
The starting point for these particular wordings appears to be that they would only in principle respond to localised occurrences of the disease. Interestingly, the Court reached a very different and narrower conclusion on the meaning of the term ‘vicinity’ in the context of the Prevention of Access wordings, compared to that under the Disease clauses. Each particular wording will have to be closely scrutinised, however, as the judgment affects different wordings in different ways, as may the application of the facts pertaining to individual policyholders.
While it is clear that this aspect of the judgment is unhelpful for affected policyholders, it remains to be seen whether the FCA will appeal any aspect of it, and whether the judgment is as unhelpful for those policyholders that have Prevention of Access/Public Authority wordings other than those specifically looked at as part of the FCA Test Case.
Causation
A striking aspect of the judgment is the way the Court neatly dispatches with the complicated causation arguments raised by insurers, by making it a part of their very clear finding on the construction of the coverage clause. Because, the court says, the insured peril is the composite peril of interruption or interference with the Business caused by the national occurrence of COVID-19, the causation arguments ‘answer themselves’. There is only one cause of loss. For the same reasons, trends clauses are largely irrelevant and the principle in Orient Express has no application.
The court’s finding that Orient Express was wrongly decided and that they would not have followed it even had they not found it to be distinguishable, will certainly raise eyebrows, and will surely lead to an appeal from Insurers on this issue at least. In deciding whether also to appeal on the policy trigger issues, Insurers will have to weigh up the potential further reputational damage they may suffer from being seen to resist the Court’s very clear findings.
Our detailed analysis of the judgment and commentary on next steps will follow.
Covid-19 Business Interruption Update: Is another storm brewing?
With the FCA Test Case concluding last week, and judgment not expected until mid-September at the earliest, this blog looks briefly at what further tumultuous times may lie ahead for policyholders. Specifically, whether policyholders’ business interruption (“BI”) losses following COVID-19 will be aggregated.
Policyholders and their brokers will know that aggregation is not in the scope of issues that has been considered by the court in the FCA Test Case. There will therefore be no fresh judicial assistance available to insureds on this issue.
Given the significance of some policyholders’ losses, we anticipate that this will be a hotly contested battle with insurers that will yet need to be resolved post-FCA Test Case.
Aggregation
In summary, aggregation is a principle under which two or more separate losses are treated as a single loss because of a unifying or connecting factor.
For those policyholders that have multiple premises insured under a single composite policy, additional aggregation arguments may arise (subject to the specific policy wording).
Where the sub-limits relevant to these COVID-19 BI claims are often lower, any aggregation of claims may ultimately be the difference between claims of hundreds of thousands of pounds or multi-millions.
On that basis, it is inevitable that insurers will use any and all arguments available to them to limit the losses recoverable, presuming policyholders succeed at least in part on liability and are able to pursue the quantification of claims.
Key issues
Whilst insurers may well seek to aggregate the losses for those policyholders that have suffered large losses, there must be a proper legal and policy basis for doing so. We are not convinced that, market-wide, there is such a basis.
As a starting point, there are numerous BI policies that do not have any aggregation wording present at all. In those cases, policyholders can take some comfort depending on how the applicable limits and sub-limits are expressed.
There are others that may face arguments from insurers that suggest that throwaway comments such as “any one loss” amount to an intention to aggregate losses, even where the wording does not purport to be an aggregation clause. Such assertions are capable of being firmly rebutted.
Any application?
On one view, it might be that aggregating wording is not triggered in any event. If the wording responds in cases where there has been ‘Damage’ i.e. property damage, one might question the relevance of that wording to the non-damage linked extensions with which COVID-19 BI claims are principally concerned. If the definition of ‘Damage’ is not extended to include non-damage perils, then it may be arguable that any aggregating wording is limited to apply only to those damage-based claims.
Commercial intentions
Even if it is conceded that there is a hypothetical basis for aggregation wording applying to a BI policy, policyholders may wish to look for the commercial realities of the effect of aggregation.
Taking the example of multiple premises being insured under one policy, where the sub-limits of the non-damage BI extensions are often a lot lower than the sum insured, policyholders may reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the aggregation of its losses would result in a commercial absurdity. Policyholders might be left with entirely inadequate cover, which cannot have been what was intended by policyholders or their brokers when obtaining cover.
Policy construction and factual issues
Notwithstanding the primary arguments above, policyholders can take some comfort that there are likely to be good policy construction arguments available, which may well be supported by a proper application of the facts.
Each policy and claim will of course have to be assessed on its own merits and facts. That notwithstanding, we would encourage insureds and their brokers to very carefully consider: (a) the construction of the wording that the insurer wishes to rely on (where relevant); and (b) how the insured’s losses have actually arisen.
Close attention needs to be paid to the actual aggregating words used: clauses that purport to aggregate losses by ‘originating cause’, ‘event’, ‘occurrence’, or ‘claim’, will have very different effects, and despite a long line of case law considering the meaning and application of these terms to various facts and circumstances, their proper application in any given case remains perennially contentious.
No two losses will have arisen in the same way. Referring again to the example of a limit applying ‘any one loss’ in a policy covering multiple insured premises, it is likely implausible that the same losses will have arisen across multiple premises, at the same time, in the same way, and with the same consequences. Might the better analysis be that multiple losses and therefore claims have in fact arisen, which therefore do not fall to be aggregated?
Further Lockdowns
As we move into the next phase of the pandemic and a new era of local lockdowns and other containment measures, many recently re-opened businesses may find themselves shutting down once more. Do any losses arising as a result give rise to a new claim under the policy, or do they fall to be aggregated with any claim already submitted from the earlier national lockdown?
The answer will lie partly in the outcome of the FCA Test Case, which will give us clearer guidance on exactly how and when the various non-damage BI clauses respond, and partly on an analysis of the relevant aggregating language in the policy. No doubt further disputes will arise over whether local lockdowns and restrictions imposed in relation to localised COVID-19 outbreaks amount to independent ‘causes’, ‘events’, or ‘occurrences’, and again the outcome may make the difference between no cover and full cover for continuing losses suffered by many businesses affected by the progress of the pandemic.
In the meantime, any policyholder that is subject to new restrictions on their business that are likely to result in losses should make a fresh notification under their policy via their broker.
Comment
We remain hopeful that the judgment following the FCA Test Case will decide at least some of the issues in favour of policyholders so that claims in principle may yet fall to be indemnified. If that is right, policyholders will understandably wish to proceed as quickly as possible to the quantification, and recovery, of losses.
In circumstances where that point is nearing, and losses may begin to be crystallising as those shorter indemnity periods end, we would encourage policyholders to seek assistance from their professional advisers in presenting the losses in an accurate and appropriate way. Failure to take care in doing so only risks backfiring at a later stage.
If policyholders or their brokers would like advice on any of the issues discussed in this article, or COVID-19 BI claims generally, please do not hesitate to contact us. In addition to written material, our thoughts on these issues are also disseminated by webinar as part of Fenchurch Law’s The Associate Series.
Covid-19 Business Interruption Update – FCA challenges Orient Express v Generali
The FCA and insurers have now filed their skeleton arguments in the COVID-19 business interruption Test Case, drawing the battle lines and setting out in full the arguments in support of their pleaded cases.
Of particular interest, and with potentially significant wider implications, are the sections on causation, including the application of trends clauses. The general thrust of the FCA’s case on causation is that:
- for disease clauses, the presence of COVID-19 in each locality is an integral part of one single broad and/or indivisible cause, being the COVID-19 pandemic; and
- for public authority/prevention of access clauses, the various ingredients of the clause and the government’s actions in response to the pandemic amount to a single indivisible cause of loss, and the insurers' "salami slicing” of the insuring clause is legally flawed.
Most notably the FCA submits that, not only is Hamblen J’s decision in Orient Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali Sp.A [1] to be distinguished on the facts, but that it was wrongly decided , ‘falls to be revisited’, and is ‘open to correction.’
Recap
Our commentary on the contentious Orient Express case can be found here, but in summary, the case concerned a claim brought by a hotel in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, which had damaged the insured property and devastated the city as a whole. The policyholder claimed for its business interruption losses caused by the damage, but the court found that the application of the trends clause prevented recovery of the losses due to the application of the ‘but for’ test of causation. ‘But for’ the damage to the insured property, the policyholder would still have suffered the same losses because of the damage to the wider area, meaning that there would have been no tourists able to stay in the hotel even if it had been undamaged.
Insurers’ reliance on the case
In relation to COVID-19 business interruption claims, insurers have cited the Orient Express case in support of their arguments that, even if coverage is triggered under Infectious Disease, Public Authority or Prevention of Access clauses, the application of trends clauses in the relevant policies means that adjustments must be made for the wider effects of the pandemic and/or other government actions such as social distancing and the general lockdown. The net result, insurers say, is that policyholders would have suffered the same losses regardless of whether the insured peril can be demonstrated to have been triggered.
The FCA’s case
The FCA attacks Orient Express from a number of angles. First, it notes that this was a first instance decision that was itself an appeal from an arbitration award, and as such was limited in scope to considering whether the arbitral tribunal had made an error of law. The court acknowledged that further arguments could have been made as to the disapplication of the ‘but for’ test in the interests of fairness, and indeed such arguments were raised by the policyholder in the case. But as the arguments had not been raised in the underlying arbitral proceedings, the court was unable to consider them. The court in Orient Express also granted permission to appeal, but the appeal was regrettably never heard as the case was settled.
Secondly the FCA points out, as many policyholders have done repeatedly to insurers, that the decision in Orient Express related to a dispute under a damage-linked BI cover, and that insurers had in fact paid out the available sublimits under the Denial of Access and Loss of Attraction covers in that case. The fact that they had was germane to the decision of the court, since the judge remarked:
“if Generali asserts that the loss has not been caused by the Damage to the Hotel because it would in any event have resulted from the damage to the vicinity or its consequences, it has to accept the causal effect of that damage for the POA or LOA, as indeed it has done. It cannot have it both ways. The ‘but for’ test does not therefore have the consequence that there is no cause and no recoverable loss, but rather a different (albeit, on the facts, more limited) recoverable loss.”
In the present case, insurers are indeed seeking to ‘have it both ways’, since they deny that coverage extends either under the main damage-linked insuring clause or the wider area non-damage extensions.
Thirdly, the FCA argues that the court in Orient Express applied the ‘but for’ test in a fundamentally incorrect way by treating the damage to the property and the underlying cause as distinct competing causes even though the property damage could not have occurred without the hurricane.
Finally, the FCA submits that the court failed to properly apply the superior court decision in The Silver Cloud [2], a case considering claims brought in relation to business interruption losses arising from the 9/11 attacks, in which the Court of Appeal found that the two causes of loss (terrorism and government warnings) were inextricably linked and so could be treated as a single cause. The case has obvious relevance to the present circumstances.
What are the possible outcomes?
Broadly speaking there are three different landings the court may reach on this issue (although inevitably the court may find some more nuanced combination or alternative):
- The Court rules in the FCA’s favour – Orient Express was wrongly decided, and the ‘but for’ test should consider a counterfactual in which the broader underlying cause of loss is removed. This outcome is very unlikely at first instance: although not technically bound by the High Court decision in Orient Express, the decision will be viewed as highly persuasive authority, and the court in this case is unlikely to depart from it, since this would result in two conflicting lower court decisions. It is possible however that the court may simply find that it is bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in The Silver Cloud rather than the lower court decision in Orient Express. Any such decision would almost certainly be appealed by insurers.
- The Court rules in insurers’ favour – the application of Orient Express means no (or limited) recovery even if coverage is triggered. In this case it is quite possible, that the court may in its judgment indicate that whilst it finds itself bound to follow Orient Express, it disagrees with the decision in whole or in part. Either way, by arguing that Orient Express ‘falls to be reconsidered’, the FCA must presumably be contemplating appealing on this issue to seek the overturning of the decision by the higher courts. As the Framework Agreement expressly contemplates a leapfrog appeal, it is therefore possible that this issue could fall for determination by the Supreme Court in the near future.
- Alternatively, the Court may take the somewhat easier path of distinguishing Orient Express on the basis that it only applies to property damage losses, which has also been argued by the FCA. This would leave the legal principle intact, but would narrow the scope of its application so that it does not act to limit claims brought under non-damage BI extensions, which is surely right, since these extensions are themselves effectively intended to respond to ‘wide area’ perils. Such a ruling would still have significant implications for insurers and may well still be appealed.
It is clear that the FCA’s Test Case has far-reaching implications beyond the scope of COVID-19 business interruption coverage for which it has been brought, and whilst these issues will be fiercely contested by insurers, the end result will hopefully be a greater degree of judicial clarity and certainty, which in the long term can only be in the best interests of both policyholders and insurers.
[1] Orient Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali Sp.A [2010] EWHC 1186 (Comm), [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 531
[2] IFP&C Insurance Ltd (Publ) v Silversea Cruises Ltd, the Silver Cloud [2004] EWCA Civ 76, [2004] Lloyd’s Rep 696 CA
COVID-19 Business Interruption Update: FCA Test Case First Hearing and Guidance for Insurers
First Hearing – Case Management Conference (CMC)
On 16 June the first hearing (Case Management Conference) of the FCA Test Case took place remotely at the Commercial Court. At the hearing, the court granted an order that the case will be expedited in accordance with the proposed timetable (i.e. with a final hearing from 20 July to 30 July) and that the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme will apply. The court confirmed that the case will be heard by a 2-judge panel consisting of Mr Justice Butcher and Lord Justice Flaux.
There was some early disagreement between the FCA and Insurers as to the scope of the declarations sought from the court by the FCA, in particular whether the court should make any ruling as to the actual prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK during the relevant period, and the extent to which any such finding would depend on fact and/or expert evidence. These matters will be considered further at the second CMC on 26 June.
The insurers’ Defences are due to be filed on 23 June and at that stage we will see the full extent and basis on which the insurers will resist the declarations sought by the FCA.
The second CMC will be live-streamed on 26 June via https://fl-2020-000018.sparq.me.uk/
Guidance to Insurers
The FCA’s guidance for insurers and intermediaries has now been finalised and came into effect on 17 June. It is equally useful for policyholders seeking to understand the process and how their claim may be affected. Important points to note include the following.
Summary of Test Case
In summary, the core questions that the test case seeks to resolve are:
i. issues of coverage in relation to ‘disease’ and ‘denial of access’ clauses (including any relevant exclusions); and
ii. causation (including any relevant ‘trends clause’ or equivalent wording).
The test case is not seeking to resolve, in particular:
- coverage issues relating to clauses that have an exhaustive list of diseases which does not include Covid-19
- coverage issues relating to clauses which require the disease to be present on the insured premises
- issues concerning misselling of policies
- other issues flowing from the determination of the questions in the test case such as aggregation, additional causation issues specific to loss of rent and similar claims under a property owner’s policy, and the specific quantum of any particular claims
Policy Review
Insurers are required to examine each of their relevant policy wordings to determine whether the outcome of claims under the policy will be affected by the resolution of the Test Case.
Insurers are to notify the results of their review to the FCA by 8 July. The FCA then intends to publish a comprehensive list of insurers and policy wordings that will be affected by the outcome of the Test Case.
Claims Review
The guidance also sets out quite detailed requirements for communicating with policyholders during the Test Case.
In particular, by 15 July 2020 insurers should individually notify policyholders whose claims or complaints for business interruption losses related to the coronavirus pandemic under relevant non-damage business interruption policies are outstanding or have already been declined (or had an adjustment or deduction for general causation) of:
- whether their claim or complaint is a potentially affected claim or a potentially affected complaint and the implications of that (including the FCA’s expectations of the insurer in respect of such claims or complaints under this guidance), or
- the reasons why their claim or complaint is not a potentially affected claim or potentially affected complaint, and the implications of that.
Insurers are required to continue to communicate with policyholders as and when any developments occur in the case that may affect the outcome of their claim.
Any policyholder whose claim has been declined or remains outstanding should therefore follow up with their insurer or broker if they have received no communication by 15 July at the latest.
Clock Stopped on Time Limits
Time limits for making claims or taking any other step under policies, or for making complaints to the FOS are suspended from 17 June until final resolution of the Test Case.
Whilst most claims should already have been notified before 17 June, this means that any other time limits expressed in the policy, for example in relation to proving calculations of loss, or taking action against the insurer will not apply while the test case is ongoing. That does not stop policyholders from taking such steps or pursuing their claims.
Settlement
The guidance expressly recognises that claims may be settled between insurers and policyholders while the test case is ongoing. However, when making any offer to settle, insurers should inform the policyholder about the test case and its implications. In particular, they should tell the policyholder whether the final resolution of the test case may affect the insurer’s decision about their claim, and the implications of accepting or rejecting an offer made on a full and final settlement basis.
Reassessment of Claims following Final Resolution
Upon final resolution of the Test Case, insurers should reassess all potentially affected claims, apply the judgment, and promptly inform the policyholder of the outcome of the reassessment.
COVID-19 Business Interruption Update: Further details of FCA Test Case
The FCA has now published details of its proposed test case in which it seeks to determine a number of coverage issues common to a majority of declined COVID-19 business interruption claims.
Insurers/Policy Wordings
Following consideration of over 1200 submissions to its preliminary policyholder consultation process, 17 Policy wordings have been selected as a representative sample covering the broadest spread of common issues.
At present the FCA has indicated that 16 insurers have issued policy wordings within the list identified, eight of whom have been invited to participate in the proceedings:
• Arch Insurance (UK) Limited
• Argenta Syndicate Management Limited
• Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc
• Hiscox Insurance Company Limited
• MS Amlin Underwriting Limited
• QBE UK Ltd
• Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc
• Zurich Insurance plc
It is anticipated however that other insurers who have issued policy wordings materially identical will also be affected by the court’s finding, and the FCA intends to issue a comprehensive list of affected insurers in July.
Issues
As anticipated, the focus of the proceedings is on the coverage provided by ‘non-damage’ extensions to business interruption policies, including Non-Damage Denial of Access, Infectious Disease, and Public Authority clauses.
The key issues that have been determined to be common to a majority of disputed COVID-19 BI claims include the following:
• What is meant by ‘interruption or interference’ and is closure required in whole or in part?
• Does “notifiable disease” or “human infectious or human contagious disease” include COVID-19?
• If the disease is required to be in the “vicinity of the insured premises” what does this mean?
• If the policy requires that the disease must exist within a geographical limit of the premises (e.g. 25 miles) what is required by way of proof?
• What is the meaning of an “occurrence” of notifiable disease or an “outbreak” of notifiable disease?
• What does a policyholder have to prove to show prevention or hindrance in access or use of premises?
• What is meant by “actions”, “advice”, “restrictions” imposed by government or other authority?
• What is meant by an “emergency likely to endanger life” (or similar)
• What is meant by “public authority” or “competent local authority”?
• What are the relevant causal links that must be established depending on the words used in the policy?
• Is there more than one potentially operative cause of loss, and if so what is the effect on recovery?
• What effect do any trends clauses have on the application of causation arguments?
• Do micro-organism, pollution or contamination exclusions act to exclude the losses?
Timeframe and Procedure
The FCA intends to file its claim on 9 June 2020, with Defences to be filed by 23 June 2020, and a final hearing is anticipated to be scheduled in the second half of July. In a Framework Agreement executed between the FCA and the participating insurers, it is expressly recognised that the FCA or any Insurer may appeal the decision of the court in relation to any particular issue, but the parties agree to explore the possibility of an expedited leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Further Documents
Alongside its announcement, the FCA has published:
• A proposed representative sample of 17 policy wordings;
• A preliminary list of affected insurers;
• Proposed Assumed Facts against which the determination will be made;
• Proposed Questions for Determination by the court arising from insurers’ reason fo declining claims; and
• Proposed Issues Matrix, showing which questions for determination by the court are engaged by each policy in the sample.
• The Framework Agreement agreed by the FCA and Insurers
All documents can be accessed at the FCA website https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/business-interruption-insurance
Consultation
Policyholders, insurance intermediaries, insurers and other stakeholders are invited to provide comments by 3pm on Friday 5 June, to biinsurancetestcase@fca.org.uk
Comment
Taken together, the FCA’s proposed sample of policy wordings, sets of assumed facts, and questions for the court amount to an ambitious and comprehensive set of issues for determination. With eight insurers invited to participate and make submissions across such a broad set of issues in such a compressed timetable, case management will be challenging. Nonetheless, if successfully completed, and not subject to a protracted appeals process, the exercise has the potential to provide insurers, policyholders and intermediaries with a welcome degree of certainty in relation to the vast majority of outstanding COVID-19 business interruption claims. Disputes over discrete issues such as aggregation and quantification of loss will remain, particularly in relation to those policyholders with significant and more complex losses, but even for these policyholders the FCA’s test case should narrow the issues in dispute and reduce the overall costs and time incurred in pursuing claims through formal proceedings.
COVID-19 Business Interruption Update: FCA Invites Policyholder Submissions
Further to its announcement on 1 May that it intended to seek a declaratory court ruling on common coverage issues arising in relation to COVID-19 business interruption claims, the FCA has now invited submissions from policyholders and intermediaries who would like their insurer to be considered for inclusion in the process.
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/business-interruption-insurance-during-coronavirus
Policyholders and intermediaries are invited to submit:
• arguments why they consider cover should be available, together with details of policies that they consider have not responded appropriately to a claim; and
• brief relevant facts of the case.
Any material for consideration is to be emailed to biinsurancetestcase@fca.org.uk by Wednesday 20 May 2020.
The FCA has committed to engaging openly with policyholders and their representatives at key stages of the process, and a dedicated web page has also been set up to provide information, updates and access to documents including court pleadings:
https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/business-interruption-insurance
FCA Takes the Lead - Fenchurch Law Covid-19 Business Interruption Briefing Note
Since the designation of COVID-19 as a notifiable disease in England on 5 March, and the subsequent ratcheting of measures to slow the spread of the disease, business owners large and small have incurred catastrophic losses which, for the time being, continue to mount up on a daily basis.
Those with business interruption insurance have turned to their insurers for assistance, but have by and large been met with outright rejection of their claims.
Matters have escalated rapidly in the course of the last two weeks as thousands of declined claims pile up, with action groups being formed, ‘class actions’ announced, and regulators adopting an increasingly interventionist stance, culminating with the FCA’s announcement on 1 May 2020 that it intends to take legal action to obtain a court declaration on the disputed wordings.
This update takes stock of developments so far, considers the positions of the market and policyholders in relation to the disputed issues emerging, and sets out the options for policyholders wishing to pursue their declined business interruption claims.
What is the market’s position on COVID BI Claims?
ABI
As the representative body of insurers in the UK, the ABI has unsurprisingly sought to manage the expectations of policyholders and government as to the extent to which the insurance market can be expected to shoulder a share of the burden currently being suffered by the nation, stating that “no country in the world is able to provide widespread pandemic insurance, and the UK is no exception”, “only a very small number of businesses choose to buy any form of cover that includes business interruption due to a notifiable or infectious disease”, and “such policies often only apply when the disease is present at the premises.”
Insurers
Some insurers have taken an even more extreme approach than the ABI, announcing that “[our] policies do not provide cover for business interruption as a result of the general measures taken by the UK government in response to a pandemic”, and “these extensions are intended to cover danger and disturbance and are not expected to cover a pandemic (or similar) breakout of disease.”[1]
This has been reflected in insurers’ responses to claims notified, which have largely been to issue blanket declinatures using cut-and-paste standard responses, often with no apparent consideration of the facts of the claim submitted.
FCA
Unlike the steps being taken by regulators in some other markets, notably some US states, there has been no attempt by the FCA to mandate retrospective coverage for COVID-19 losses on existing policies. Taking a relatively measured approach, the FCA wrote a ‘Dear CEO’ letter to CEOs of London market insurers on 15 April 2020, specifically in relation to SME BI insurance, acknowledging that many policyholders would have no cover, but noting that some policies do give rise to a clear obligation to pay out, and encouraging insurers to comply with their legal and regulatory obligations to pay claims promptly. Following the escalation of the situation over the following fortnight, and the entrenchment of insurers’ coverage positions, on 1 May 2020 the FCA took the bolder step of announcing that it intended to “obtain a court declaration to resolve contractual uncertainty in business interruption (BI) insurance cover.”
FOS
The Financial Ombudsman Service, which handles complaints for individuals and SMEs up to maximum claim value of £350,000 has also issued its own guidance in relation to the anticipated high volumes of disputed BI claims. On 14 April 2020 it indicated that it would “expect the insurers to think beyond a strict interpretation of the policy terms and consider carefully what’s fair and reasonable in each case, taking into account the unprecedented situation”. Interestingly that language has now been removed from the latest version of its guidance provided online.
What are the disputed coverage issues?
Damage
In the absence of extended cover, most policyholders will need to establish that any business interruption losses arise from insured damage to property. At first sight that may appear to have no relevance to COVID-19 BI claims, since there has been no obvious property damage that would trigger the cover. However, under English law, a number of cases have found that only very small changes in physical state can amount to property damage, leading to suggestions that viral contamination leading to loss of use can amount to damage. Much has been made of a recent decision in Canada, in which the court adopted a broader interpretation of the term physical damage, which incorporated such things as the loss of the function or use of a building, even if only temporary[2]. Whether this can successfully be argued under English law will depend in part on the definition of property damage in the policy (some policies refer to ‘physical’ damage, which requires a permanent and irreversible change in physical condition, while others refer only to ‘accidental loss or damage’, which extends to transient and reversible changes in physical condition), and the application of any contamination or pollution exclusions. Insurers will certainly resist paying any claims on this basis, but it is quite possible that litigation will be pursued on this point which, if successful, could dramatically widen the scope of cover under traditional BI policies.
Locality
Many policies that do contain extended cover for losses caused by infectious disease, prevention of access, or public authority action, under which cover is now sought, will include some form of reference to an occurrence of the insured peril on the premises, in the vicinity, or within a specified radius, commonly 1 mile or 25 miles.
Insurers’ response has broadly been that these provisions mean that the extensions will only respond to localized incidences of disease, and not to widespread epidemic or pandemic circumstances where the whole country (or in this case the world) is affected.
Policyholders on the other hand might reasonably question why, in the absence of any pandemic exclusion, the presence of the disease elsewhere can have any effect on the local coverage provided by their policy. Perhaps insurers’ decisions on coverage are being driven by concerns over their likely overall exposure rather than the actual cover provided by a policy? The correct answer will as ever lie in the drafting of the policy wording in question, but this is set to be one of the key contested issues.
Causation
The second broad category of issues on which disputes will turn are various forms of causation argument. Insurers are arguing that, even if the relevant policy trigger can be demonstrated to have occurred, the losses suffered by the policyholder are not caused, or are not solely caused, by the insured peril.
Although such arguments may be couched in various different terms, they all effectively seek to apply the controversial principle established in the case of Orient Express Hotels v Generali, in which the losses of an insured hotel in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina were found not be insured because they were caused not by the relevant trigger (property damage), but by damage to the wider area, i.e. the losses would have happened anyway even if the insured property damage had not occurred.
Again the outcome of such arguments will depend on application of the policy wording, including the relevant causation language in the insuring clause, and any ‘Trends Clause’ to the facts of any given claim. Causation arguments are generally complex and difficult to generalise in relation to multiple claims, and we can expect to see some hard-fought litigation in this field.
Aggregation
A perennial issue that is not unique to COVID-19 claims is whether losses suffered at multiple insured locations should be aggregated for the purpose of applying limits of liability and deductibles. As a general rule, the cover provided by the non-damage BI extensions tends to be sub-limited to a level which may be a small fraction of the total policy limits. Whether policyholders may claim for multiples of the specified sub-limit will depend on the existence of any express aggregation clause, and whether for example the sub-limit is expressed as applying to any one ‘loss’, ‘occurrence’, ‘event’, or arising from the same ‘originating cause’. For those policyholders with multiple locations insured under the same policy, for example restaurants, pubs and shops, this issue may determine whether whether a claim is worth £1 million or £100 million (and beyond), and as such will no doubt give rise to some hotly contested claims.
What happens next?
Policyholders whose BI claims have been rejected have various options open to them at this stage, and it is important to note that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all policyholders.
Negotiation
As a general starting point, negotiations through open dialogue with the insurer are always advisable, either directly or through a representative such as a broker or lawyer. For the many thousands of SME businesses this is unlikely to be a realistic option at this stage, but for those larger businesses with more significant losses reaching seven, eight, or nine figures, insurers are more likely to be willing to engage in constructive discussions.
FOS
For eligible policyholders, the FOS provides a cost-free and fair solution to resolving disputed insurance claims. However, the prescribed timescales may frustrate some policyholders in the current situation, since they are required to make a complaint following an insurer’s rejection of any claim, following which the insurer has eight weeks to each a ‘final decision’. Only then may the policyholder refer the matter to the FOS. Following those timescales, policyholders are prevented from taking any action for the next two months unless the insurer agrees to issue an expedited ‘final decision.’
Arbitration
Any policyholder with an arbitration clause in their policy will be required to pursue private arbitration proceedings to resolve their dispute, unless they are FOS-eligible. This may be an appropriate option for some larger policyholders with bespoke coverage issues, and the resources to pursue lengthy and expensive arbitration proceedings, but for many smaller policyholders the prospect of having to arbitrate will be a significant barrier to pursuing their claim. Further difficulties with arbitration in the present situation are the absence of effective procedures for aggregating claims, and the lack of any system of binding precedent.
Group Litigation
There has been much talk of ‘class actions’ or other group litigation being pursued against certain insurers, and several action groups have been formed for this purpose. Whilst this remains a possibility, there are significant downsides to policyholders in attempting to pursue their claims as part of a group, not least that each of their claims will have factual, if not legal, issues that are specific to their own circumstances. The ability of group legal proceedings to determine large numbers of complex BI insurance claims is doubtful, and the procedural complexities and timescales are unlikely to be attractive, not to mention the funding necessities that will see policyholders sacrificing a significant proportion of any damages in return for representation as part of the group. Moreover, this option may now have been rendered largely redundant by the FCA’s announcement of its own legal action.
FCA legal action
The FCA’s proposal to seek a ruling on the disputed coverage issues is an unusually interventionist but potentially welcome step. The action sensibly stops short of over-reaching the FCA’s remit, and preserves the role of the English courts as the proper arbiter of matters of contractual interpretation. The FCA has indicated that it intends to invite the participation of a select group of insurers in the process by 15 May 2020, and further details are awaited on the proposed process.
It is not known at this stage whether policyholders or their representatives will have any opportunity to make submissions or representations in the proceedings, or what procedural mechanism will be followed, although a claim for a declaratory ruling under CPR Part 8 seems likely. Provided that the right issues are put before the court, supported by appropriate representations on both sides of the fence, this may well be the most cost-effective and efficient way to resolve the common issues. The proceedings will not and cannot provide an answer to all of the questions, and some disputed claims will inevitably still proceed to litigation or arbitration. But for a large majority of policyholders, particularly those whose claims do not justify the pursuit of independent legal proceedings, this development may provide the best opportunity to overturn the rejection of their claim, without requiring any active participation on their part.
Next Steps
For most policyholders, a wait-and-see approach is likely to be advisable at this stage. Any attempt to negotiate with insurers or take more formal steps such as commencing arbitration or litigation is unlikely to produce results until all parties have a better understanding of the proposed FCA legal action, including the likely timetable and the scope of the issues for determination.
For now, policyholders’ focus should therefore be on ensuring that effective notification has been given to insurers in sufficiently broad terms (usually via brokers), taking steps to mitigate losses where possible, and keeping records of any costs reasonably and necessarily incurred in doing so.
[1] https://qbeeurope.com/media/8685/covid-19-qbe-faqs.pdf
[2] MDS Inc v Factory Mutual Insurance Company (1 April 2020)
When is an individual a consumer for insurance purposes?
The law distinguishes between businesses and consumers in many areas, with the consumer benefiting from a more favourable regime as a result of their need for greater protection in the commercial market place.
In the insurance arena, consumers can look to a number of statutory and regulatory provisions designed to protect their rights, including those contained in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), and the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) rules.
Often the distinction between a consumer and a business will be readily apparent. Occasionally the line is more blurred, and it is recognised that private individuals can act in a number of capacities. A recent Court of Appeal case, Mohammed Ashfaq v International Insurance Company of Hannover plc, has provided guidance on how to ascertain whether an individual is acting as a consumer when taking out an insurance policy.
In that case, the insured was seeking to have set aside a judgment of the Technology and Construction Court dismissing his claim for indemnity following a fire at a property he owned in Huddersfield. He argued that the court should have taken into account his consumer status, and that if it had, it would have reached a different conclusion.
The insured had incorrectly given a negative answer in his online proposal form for residential let property insurance to the question as to whether he had ever been convicted or had any prosecutions pending. The policy contained a ‘basis of contract’ clause as a result of which any incorrect information provided in the proposal form could amount to a breach of warranty. The insured had in fact a pending prosecution for common assault. When this was discovered insurers sought to avoid liability under the policy on a number of grounds including breach of warranty. The insured argued that had the consumer protections contained in UTCCR and ICOBS been taken into account the insurers would not have been so entitled.
The UTCCR defines a consumer as “any natural person who, in contracts governed by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.” ICOBS similarly defines a consumer as “any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his trade or profession. Further, where the individual is acting in more than one capacity, ICOBS provides that, if in relation to particular contract of insurance, the customer entered into it mainly for purposes unrelated to his trade or profession, the customer is a consumer.
The insured submitted that his trade or profession was that of a company director of three companies whose business was IT not property ownership or letting. He further submitted that the main purpose of taking out the insurance was to protect his property asset against fire and other risks and the insurance against loss of rent was subsidiary. The main purpose of entering into the contract of insurance was therefore unrelated to his trade or profession and he fell within the definition of a consumer.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It was clear from the face of the policy documentation that the purpose for which the insurance was taken out was to protect the property which the insured was using for the business of letting to students for rent, against fire and other risks. The purpose of the insurance was therefore related to the insured’s trade, business or profession of property letting. Further, part of the cover sought was loss of rent for up to 12 months: this was not an application for ordinary domestic house insurance.
The fact that insured was a company director and carried on the trade or profession of company director did not mean that he was not also carrying on the trade business or profession of a building owner letting out property for profit.
This finding is consistent with guidance given by the FCA as to how individuals acting in certain capacities should be categorised. One of the examples it gives of a commercial customer is a person taking out a policy covering property bought under a buy-to-let mortgage.
The judge did not consider whether the appellant would have been considered a consumer under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 which was not in force at the relevant time for the purposes of this case. On the basis that that Act takes a similar approach, defining a consumer insurance contract as one between an individual who enters into the contract wholly or mainly for purposes unrelated to the individual’s trade business or profession, it would seem unlikely that a different conclusion would have been reached.
This case serves as a reminder that a person’s status as a consumer is not synonymous with that of being an individual. Any business activity undertaken, including as an adjunct to that individual’s usual trade or profession, may make them a commercial consumer for insurance purposes.
See Mohammed Ashfaq v International Insurance Company of Hannover plc [2017] EWCA Civ 357.
Joanna Grant is a partner at Fenchurch Law.
