It is now over five months since the Supreme Court handed down its largely policyholder-friendly judgment in the FCA Test Case, but for a majority of policyholders, the end is not yet in sight.<\/p>\n
The FCA\u2019s latest figures, published on 14 June 2021, indicate that, of 46,854 claims reported to have been accepted by insurers, or where a decision on coverage is still pending, only 34% (16,159) have so far been paid in full. Moreover, the data published by the FCA does not include numbers of claims declined by insurers which may be disputed by policyholders, and excludes \u2018contracts of large risks\u2019 [i]<\/a>. Whilst giving an indication of the (some might say slow) progress being made by insurers in settling undisputed SME BI claims, the data does not therefore shed any light on areas of ongoing dispute.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, an examination of cases proceeding in the courts (including the Test Case itself) reveals that the stage is set for a raft of further litigation in relation to issues that were either undetermined in the Test Case, or where a degree of uncertainty persists.<\/p>\n Supreme Court Declarations<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Most notably, the Supreme Court Declarations, giving effect to the rulings set out in the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 15 January 2021, as applied to the 21 sample policy wordings under direct consideration in the Test Case, are still awaited. It is unfortunate (whilst not intended as criticism levelled in any particular direction) that the outcome of the Test Case has yet to be finalised in this way, following the herculean efforts of the Parties and the Court in bringing the case all the way from inception to the Supreme Court on such an expedited timetable.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court\u2019s conclusions on the legal issues, as set out in its 114-page judgment of 15 January, might be thought to be clear and not susceptible to further dispute between the parties. However, the Draft Declarations, published by the FCA on 15 February 2021, setting out the outstanding areas of disagreement between the parties and the alternative versions of the Declarations sought by each side, shows that not to be the case.\u00a0 In particular, the FCA and Insurers have clearly reached different views on what amounts to \u2018restrictions imposed\u2018 according to the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment, and the final form of Declarations will therefore be welcomed by policyholders and insurers alike in bringing some finality to the issue. The FCA last announced on 30 April 2021 that the Supreme Court Declarations \u2018may be available\u2019 in the next week, but has remained silent on the matter since then.<\/p>\n Other litigation \u2013 Coverage and Quantum<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Whilst impressive in its scope, it was always acknowledged that the Test Case would not be capable of resolving all outstanding issues in relation to Covid-19 BI coverage. For some policyholders, the issue of whether their policy responds at all to losses flowing from the pandemic and the UK government response remains undetermined.\u00a0 For others who have had coverage confirmed, the focus has now turned to the issue of how much insurers are liable to pay.\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, that is frequently contentious, and affected by a number of common issues.<\/p>\n Coverage Issues<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Specified Disease<\/strong><\/p>\n The Disease clauses under consideration in the Test Case generally responded to any disease which is required to be notified to the authorities under the relevant public health legislation. Other, more restrictive Disease clauses only respond to losses caused by an occurrence or outbreak of one of a specified list of diseases, which in all cases did not include Covid-19. In Rockcliffe Hall v Travelers<\/em> [1]<\/a>, the Court determined by way of summary judgment that such clauses are not capable of responding to Covid-19, rejecting the policyholder\u2019s argument that Covid-19 was a form of \u2018plague.\u2019<\/p>\n See our update on the case here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Damage to \/Loss of Property<\/strong><\/p>\n The Test Case itself considered coverage under \u2018non-damage\u2019 clauses i.e. extensions of cover responding to BI losses where no insured property damage has taken place. The issue of whether the presence of Covid-19 or Sars-Cov-2 on the premises could amount to or cause damage to or loss of property, thus triggering the core BI cover under most property insurance policies, fell for consideration in the early case of TKC v Allianz[2]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>. The Court held emphatically (again by way of summary judgment) that it could not. See our earlier update on the case here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n More recently, a claim filed by Xerox against FM Global[3]<\/a> seeks to establish coverage for BI losses flowing from \u2018physical loss or damage\u2019, although that claim is being pursued as a satellite claim to litigation under a global master policy in the USA.\u00a0 It is not yet clear the basis on which Xerox will invite the Court to depart from the principles set down in TKC v Allianz<\/em>.<\/p>\n Prevention of Access<\/strong><\/p>\n The High Court\u2019s findings in the Test Case in relation to Prevention of Access wordings were, by and large, negative, and many policyholders were disappointed by the FCA\u2019s decision not to appeal the negative rulings.\u00a0 Following the outcome of the largely-successful appeal to the Supreme Court on other issues, the coverage position in relation to many Prevention of Access wordings now stands in stark relief to the position under the Disease wordings, and the findings of the High Court on which most insurers have now relied to decline coverage under Prevention of Access clauses are difficult to reconcile with the Supreme Court\u2019s analysis of the covered peril and causation issues.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, many policyholders with Prevention of Access wordings are not content to abandon their claims, and a number of disputes are now moving forward to test the point further.\u00a0 The first of these to be litigated is Corbin & King v Axa[4]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>, in which the Policyholder seeks to establish that the Covid-19 pandemic amounted to a \u2018danger or disturbance\u2019 within 1 mile of the insured premises, resulting in closure on the advice of a public authority, and triggering coverage for BI losses under a Denial of Access (non damage) clause.<\/p>\n The outcome of that case \u2013 and any others that may be joined to or managed with it \u2013 is likely to be highly influential on the coverage available under other typical Prevention of Access wordings in the market, and will therefore be closely watched by parties on both sides of the fence.<\/p>\n Disease \u2018at the Premises\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n The dispute as to whether Disease clauses requiring an occurrence of disease at the insured premises are capable of responding to Covid-19 BI losses in the same way as \u2018radius\u2019 clauses rumbles on.\u00a0 Following the conclusions of the Supreme Court on insured peril and causation, many Policyholders have argued that an occurrence of Covid-19 at their insured premises ought to be viewed as a proximate cause of loss in the same way as occurrences of Covid-19 within a specified radius of the premises (indeed some might say that an occurrence at the premises should be viewed as more<\/em> proximate than occurrences away from the premises), and some insurers appear to have accepted coverage on this basis.\u00a0 A majority have not, however, and it remains to be seen how the point will be resolved.<\/p>\n For its part, the FCA has clearly indicated that it considers the \u2018at the premises\u2019 wordings to be capable of responding in the same way as the \u2018radius\u2019 clauses, and has instructed<\/a> insurers to include such wordings in their most recent submissions confirming those policy wordings that are now capable of providing cover for Covid-19 BI losses.\u00a0 Whether insurers will go one step further in confirming indemnity under such policies without further litigation remains to be seen.<\/p>\n Quantum Issues<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Aggregation<\/strong><\/p>\n Non-damage BI extensions are typically sub-limited to 10% or less of the main BI sum insured, and in light of the scale of the losses suffered by many policyholders, the issue of how the sub-limits are available to meet the covered losses is therefore key.\u00a0 If Insurers\u2019 liability is limited to a single sub-limit of liability, the policyholder is unlikely to make a material recovery in relation to the majority of its losses.\u00a0 If, on the other hand, the Policyholder can establish that it is entitled to recover multiple sub-limits of liability under the relevant non-damage BI extension(s), there may be better prospects of recovering all (or the majority) of its losses.\u00a0 How the covered losses are \u2018aggregated\u2019 for the purpose of the application of sub-limits is highly dependant on the individual policy wording, but typically depends on whether the sub-limit is expressed as applying \u2018per loss\u2019, \u2018per claim\u2019, \u2018per occurrence\u2019, per \u2018event\u2019, or \u2018per originating cause\u2019.\u00a0 There are many other variations and permutations of these words, and a long line of complex (and often contradictory) case law considering the meaning of these aggregating terms, typically in the context of war\/terrorism, natural catastrophes, and professional risks. Of disease perils, there has been very little judicial consideration in the English courts, either in terms of aggregation or more generally, and unsurprisingly aggregation of Covid-19 losses is therefore set to be a key focus of the next wave of Covid-19 BI litigation.<\/p>\n Because of the peculiarities of specific policy wordings and the manner in which individual Policyholders have suffered loss, the issue of aggregation is less suitable for determination as a general market test case in the same way that the FCA sought to determine the coverage trigger issue.\u00a0 Nonetheless, there will be various points of principle that, once determined, will be influential in the determining the outcome under a variety of different wordings (including reinsurance contracts.)\u00a0\u00a0 Various cases are now proceeding in the Commercial Court, in particular focusing on the issue of aggregation under the Marsh Resilience policy wording, one of the clear winners in the Test Case (where it was referred to as \u2018RSA4\u2019), and which contains occurrence-based aggregating wording.<\/p>\n Government Support<\/strong><\/p>\n Many (if not all) policyholders have received some form of government support, in the form of grants, rates relief, and furlough payments over the course of the pandemic, and the issue of whether and how these amounts are to be applied to insurance claim calculations is hotly contested.\u00a0 Insurers for their part insist that any receipt of government support goes to reduce the loss suffered by the policyholder, and therefore the value of any claim under the Policy.\u00a0 Policyholders, in response, point out that government support payment are neither \u2018Turnover\u2019 nor a \u2018Saving\u2019 within most Policy definitions, and are not therefore to be taken into account within a typical Specification setting out the correct basis for calculating a BI indemnity under most policies. In light of the low sub-limits of liability available under most non-damage BI extensions, the suggestion by some insurers that failing to make deductions for government support results in a \u2018windfall\u2019 for policyholders, is viewed by many policyholders as insulting and a further example of insurers\u2019 egregious attempts to limit their own liability.<\/p>\n The FCA has written to insurers expressing concern over the issue on several occasions, and the ABI has confirmed<\/a> that some of its members have agreed not to deduct government grants from Covid-19 BI claims.\u00a0 However, the position in relation to other types of support, in particular furlough payments, remains highly contentious and unlikely to be resolved without litigation. It is likely that one or more of the existing cases proceeding through the courts will seek to test the issue.<\/p>\n Loss of Rent<\/strong><\/p>\n While the Test Case considered and determined which events connected with the Covid-19 pandemic were capable of triggering<\/em> coverage, the case did not consider the matter of what type<\/em> of loss is covered by the sample clauses. In most cases, policies respond to loss of Gross Profit in one form or another, but in the case of commercial landlords, coverage is often provided for Loss of Rent Receivable.\u00a0 In relation to these policies, insurers have commonly taken the position that the landlord has not suffered a loss of Rent Receivable merely by virtue of the fact that its tenants have been unable to pay rent during periods of closure (due to a total lack of revenue); the landlord must also be able to show that the tenant has been relieved of its obligation to pay rent during the closure period, which in most cases will not be satisfied.\u00a0\u00a0 Otherwise, the insurers say, the loss should fall on the tenant (who may or may not have BI cover), and not the landlord.<\/p>\n Landlords may reasonably question the commercial utility of such clauses if their response is limited in the way insurers claim, as the coverage provided would in real life be largely illusory. The issue has fallen for consideration, somewhat obliquely, in two recent cases, that were also decided on summary judgment, unfavourably for policyholders. In Commerz Real Investmentgesellschaft MBH v TFS Stores <\/em>Ltd[5]<\/a> and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd and v Cine-UK Ltd and others[6]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>it was determined that the government-ordered closure of various retail premises did not activate rent cessor clauses or otherwise relieve the tenants from their obligation to pay rent under the relevant lease. The tenant\u2019s argument that the landlord held insurance for loss of rent was also rejected on the basis that the insurance policies were only designed to respond where the rent cessor clauses were activated, and the existence of the insurance did not therefore affect the obligations as between the tenant and the landlord.<\/p>\n The initial view of the courts therefore appears to be that commercial landlords will in most cases have no valid claim for a loss of Rent Receivable due to Covid-19 closures. However, considering that both cases were decided by a Master on summary judgment, and with the insurance coverage issue being determined very much as a secondary issue (the Master in one case expressing reservations over determining the issue with no insurer as a party to the case), the reasoning in the two judgments might be viewed as far from final, and in view of the importance of the issue to a large number of policyholders, it seems likely that the point will be further tested in the courts in the near future.<\/p>\n The Path Ahead<\/strong><\/p>\n It is clear that the Covid-19 BI has not only given rise to a host of new coverage issues, but also reignited a number of traditional areas of dispute in the field, each of which is generating further litigation now emerging in the courts.\u00a0 Although it will be regrettable for many policyholders that additional legal hurdles must be overcome before coverage of their claims can be established and or quantified, the further consideration by the courts of these issues in the round will, it must be hoped, lead to further clarification of the law underpinning business interruption insurance, and as such may be a welcome development in the longer term.<\/p>\n Aaron Le Marquer<\/a> is a Partner at Fenchurch Law<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> [2021] EWHC 412 (Comm)<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> [2020] EWHC 2710 (Comm)<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Commercial Court Claim No. CL-2021-000138<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Commercial Court Claim No. CL-2021-000235<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> [2021] EWHC 863 (Ch)<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> [2021] EWHC 1013 (QB)<\/p>\n [i]<\/a> i.e. where the\u00a0policyholder<\/em><\/a>\u00a0exceeds the limits of at least two of the following three criteria: (i) balance sheet total: \u20ac6.2 million; (ii) net turnover: \u20ac12.8 million; (iii) average number of\u00a0employees<\/em><\/a>\u00a0during the financial year: 250<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It is now over five months since the Supreme Court handed down its largely policyholder-friendly judgment in the FCA Test […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":209,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[332],"class_list":["post-234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-products-environmental-risks"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n