Property Risks

Reinsurance Cover for Covid BI Losses Upheld on Appeal

In UnipolSai Assicurazioni SPA v Covea Insurance PLC [2024] EWCA Civ 110, the Court of Appeal has upheld the first instance finding that the reinsured (Covea), having paid out substantial sums in respect of Covid business interruption (BI) losses, were entitled to indemnity under property catastrophe excess of loss policies with reinsurers. The decision provides clarification on the operation of aggregation clauses and the proper interpretation of a “catastrophe” in treaty reinsurance arrangements.

Covea provided cover for a large number of children’s nurseries which were forced to close between 20 March 2020 and July 2020, as a result of the pandemic. The factual background and outcome at first instance are explained in detail in our earlier article. The decision was appealed by reinsurers and the following questions arose for re-evaluation:

1. Whether Covid-19 losses arose out of, and were directly occasioned by, a “catastrophe”; and

2. Whether the “Hours Clause” - by which the duration of any “Loss Occurrence” was prescribed depending on the nature of the underlying peril - meant that:

(i) an “individual loss” occurs on the date the covered peril strikes, including where the insured peril is the loss of ability to use premises; and

(ii) where the (re)insured first sustains indemnifiable BI loss within a nominated 168-hour period, subsequent losses after that period fall to be aggregated as part of a single “Loss Occurrence”.

Meaning of Catastrophe

At first instance, Mr Justice Foxton held that Covid-19 did amount to a “catastrophe,” as required under the reinsurance wording. On appeal, the reinsurers argued that a catastrophe must be a sudden or violent event, capable of causing physical damage, whereas the pandemic was an ongoing state of affairs.

The Court of Appeal rejected these submissions, highlighting the absence of any reference to an “event” within the policy wording, and noting that the unities test in Axa v Field [1996] is merely an aid to be used with broad application. Their Lordships also rejected the argument that “suddenness” was a pre-requisite for all catastrophes, and, in any event, the “exponential increase in Covid 19 infections in the UK […] did amount to a disaster of sudden onset.” The attempt by reinsurers to rely on an ejusdem generis argument, in relation to the alleged need for physical damage, was flawed, as the types of catastrophes mentioned in the policy were not intended to be a prescribed class. The expert evidence that BI cover may include cover for non-damage BI was unchallenged.

Operation of the Hours Clause

The central question for consideration under the Hours Clause was when the relevant loss occurred. If it fell outside the period stipulated, then it would not be recoverable. It was also noted that the term “Loss Occurrence” was defined in the policy to mean “individual losses”. Discussing this further, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the term “occur” means when a loss first happens during a period of time. In relation to BI specifically, it was held that when the covered peril is the loss of an ability to use the premises, the individual loss occurs at the same time, regardless of how long the financial loss continues - consistent with the approach taken by Mr Justice Butcher in Stonegate and Various Eateries. Provided the individual loss occurs within the indemnity period, the totality of that loss is covered and all of its financial consequences. An apportionment of financial loss would give rise to considerable practical difficulties and was deemed to be incorrect.

Implications for Policyholders

The decision is welcomed by cedants with the benefit of similarly worded reinsurance policies. The implications are far-reaching, with total payouts for Covid BI claims estimated in the region of £2 billion, according to the Association of British Insurers. This policyholder-friendly precedent is particularly helpful, since most reinsurance disputes are resolved in confidential arbitrations.

Authors:

Amy Lacey, Partner

Pawinder Manak, Trainee Solicitor

by Fenchurch Law

Climate Risks Series, Part 2: Flood and Storm Risk - Keeping Policyholders Afloat

Introduction

Extreme rainfall and storms have become increasingly prevalent in the UK. Figures from the Association of British Insurers (“ABI”) show that storms and heavy rain have contributed to driving up property insurance payouts to the highest level in 7 years.

During floods in September 2024, several areas of the UK experienced significant property damage. This included AFC Wimbledon’s grounds, where a sinkhole caused the football pitch to collapse, after a nearby river burst its banks due to the excessive rainfall.

This article will discuss:

1. The coverage issues that policyholders could face in relation to cover for damage caused by flood and storm.
2. How stakeholders can increase resilience to floods and storms.

Coverage Issues

Where policies do not clearly define what constitutes a “flood” or a “storm”

Extreme weather comes in various forms and severities. In the absence of a clear definition of “flood” or “storm”, insurers may seek to rely on metrics such as the Beaufort wind force scale, ABI definition of storm, or previous case law, to support arguments limiting the scope of policy cover depending on the particular facts.

Recent decisions from the US have held that flood exclusions did not apply to: water damage from backed-up drainage following Hurricane Ida (GEMS Partners LLC v AmGUARD Ins Co (2024), in the New Jersey district court); and water accumulating on a parapet roof after a severe storm (Zurich v Medical Properties Trust Inc (2024), in the Massachusetts Supreme Court); based on the meaning of “flood” and “surface waters” in the relevant policy wordings.

In FCA v Arch Insurance Limited [2021] UKSC 1, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that, when looking at the construction of a policy, it is necessary to consider how a reasonable person would understand the meaning of the words used, in light of the commercial context. Therefore, policyholders should ensure, prior to inception, that the policy contains appropriate and clear definitions of “flood” and/or “storm”, to prevent ambiguity in the event of a claim.

Where the weather event is a combination of “flood” and “storm”

Where a weather event may appear to be a combination of both a flood and a storm, identifying the proximate cause of the loss, i.e. the dominant cause, may be difficult without meteorological expert evidence. This can raise two separate issues.

Firstly, policies contain different sub-limits for flood or storm damage. For example, if “flood” has a lower sub-limit compared to “storm” perils, a policyholder would likely seek to argue that storm damage has occurred, to maximise cover under the policy.

Secondly, if a policy excludes either flood or storm damage, the principles derived from Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corp Ltd [1974] QB 57 and The Miss Jay Jay [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 32 may apply. This means that where two concurrent proximate causes operate together to bring about a loss, if one is insured under the policy and one is excluded, the loss will not be covered. If one concurrent proximate cause is an insured peril and the other is not insured, but not excluded, the loss will be covered.

Flood management measures

After the damage to its pitch, AFC Wimbledon was reportedly exploring ways to improve its flood management and infrastructure, to reduce the risk of future floods. It is likely that insurers will seek to introduce more conditions within property insurance policies, requiring certain flood management measures to be in place as a prerequisite to cover.

Flood resistance measures aim to “resist” or reduce the amount of water that enters a property. This can include the installation of flood gates or airbrick covers. Flood resilience measures purely mitigate the level of damage to property. This would include having concrete floor tiles, as opposed to carpets, and placing plug sockets away from entrances close to water.

Some property policies will contain a stillage condition precedent to liability. This will state that a policyholder will not be covered for loss caused by a flood, storm or escape of water, if it does not keep stock or other items a certain distance above floor level.

Furthermore, insurers could potentially restrict cover offered to policyholders whose buildings are situated in areas at a higher risk of flooding, or where businesses do not have mechanisms in place to deal with potential flood damage.

Why is Climate Change causing more Floors and Storms?

It is thought that the increase in the number of extreme weather events is a result of climate change.

Climate change contributes to more floods and storms because the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has allowed carbon dioxide to trap the sun’s rays. This has resulted in an increase in the planet’s temperature and the level of moisture that is held in the atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere, the quicker the water can evaporate and fall, resulting in more intense and voluminous rainfall.

Improving Industry Resilience to Floor and Storm

The increase in natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes has  led to some insurers pulling out of international catastrophe insurance markets. This is because of the unpredictable nature of these events and the severity of the losses suffered. This has resulted in limited options and more expensive premiums for catastrophe policies available to policyholders.

Similarly, insurers in the UK are becoming more reluctant to provide cover for damage caused by storm and flood, as the number of these types of claims increases, giving rise to the risk of a protection gap for policyholders.

Parametric Insurance

One of the tools available to help mitigate this effect is parametric insurance. This is a type of insurance cover where claims are paid on a predetermined basis. For example, cover for a storm would have parameters such that, if there is damage to property and a certain wind-speed or water depth is reached, then the policy would be triggered.

Traditional insurance policies are based on the actual loss that is sustained by the policyholder, whereas parametric insurance policies are triggered by the occurrence of an event and when certain parameters are reached. One of the main benefits of parametric insurance is the greater certainty of insurers paying out. This is especially important where there is a need for an urgent financial resource, allowing for a quicker payment to be made to policyholders.

Flood/Storm specific reinsurance schemes

For flood damage in the UK, there is a scheme in place for homeowners known as Flood Re. This scheme operates in a way where insurers can pay a premium to reinsurers and they would have access to a “pool” of indemnity when a claim arises. If the pool is exhausted, then the government can step in to pay the remainder of any losses.

The scheme is expected to provide cover until 2039 as Flood Re anticipates there will then be a “free market” for flood risk insurance. However, one can argue that this is unlikely if we see a similar pattern in the increase in extreme weather events and insurance claims over the next decade. Therefore, an alternative scheme may be needed, for businesses as well as homeowners, to ensure all policyholders have a safety net in the event of claims arising out of floods and storms.

Broader Risk Management

Increased industry resilience is likely to come from broader risk management. Currently, the UK does not have a robust plan in place to tackle flood risk. It is the responsibility of organisations such as the Environment Agency, the UK Climate Change Committee and DEFRA to collaborate and mitigate flood risk.

There have been calls for the Government to set specific flood risk targets as a result of climate change and the increase in extreme weather events. This would be an example of an initiative where input from a variety of organisations could help to reduce the risk of property damage and lead to increased resilience.

Conclusion

With the rise in extreme weather events, insurers will look to mitigate exposures and robustly defend claims arising from flood and storm damage, leaving policyholders in a potentially vulnerable position.

A collaborative response is needed to ensure that the insurance industry can adapt to emerging risks and ensure that appropriate cover is available for policyholders, in the event of floods and storms.

Author

Ayo Babatunde, Associate

by Ayo Babatunde

The elephant in the room: and it’s not the Secretary of State

In this, the latest in a series of recent Covid-19 BI appeals, the Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in International Entertainment Holdings Limited & Ors v Allianz Insurance Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 1281. A copy of the judgment can be found here.

The central issue here turned on whether the restrictions brought in by the government, preventing or hindering access to the claimants’ theatres around the country, were those of a “‘policing authority”.

In concluding that they were not, the Court of Appeal held that, “It is sufficient to say that the term does not extend to the Secretary of State. To adapt Lord Justice Scrutton’s famous remark about the elephant (Merchants Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protection & Indemnity Association (1926) 26 Ll LR 201, 203), the reasonable policyholder might not be able to define a “policing authority”, but he would know that the Secretary of State was not one.”

That finding notwithstanding, the judgment brings some welcome news for the wider policyholder market with the finding that Covid-19 can be an “incident” and that, in the absence of clear wording to the contrary, cover can be available on a “per premises” basis.

The Underlying Proceedings

The issues on appeal in this matter were first heard by Mr Justice Jacobs as part of a group of cases (see Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2024] EWHC 124 (Comm)).

The claim concerned the interpretation of a non-damage denial of access (“NDDA”) clause for losses arising out of the closure of venues, following the 21 March Regulations made by the Secretary for Health and Social Care.

The relevant wording read as follows:

“Denial of Access Endanger Life or Property

Any claim resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business as a direct result of an incident likely to endanger human life or property within 1 mile radius of the premises in consequence of which access to or use of the premises is prevented or hindered by any policing authority, but excluding any occurrence where the duration of such prevention or hindrance of us [sic.] is less than 4 hours, shall be understood to be loss resulting from damage to property used by the Insured at the premises provided that

i) The Maximum Indemnity Period is limited to 3 months, and

ii) The liability of the Insurer for any one claim in the aggregate during any one Period of Insurance shall not exceed £500,000”

At first instance, the Judge concluded that the Secretary of State was not a “policing authority”, which was sufficient for the policyholders’ claims to be dismissed.

The Appeal

While accepting that the term “policing authority” was not limited to the police, and that it could encompass restrictions imposed by a similar body performing policing functions in circumstances likely to endanger human life or property, the Court of Appeal felt it unnecessary to decide how widely the clause may extent on the basis that it was sufficient to say it did not include the Secretary for State.

That decision was ultimately determinative of whether or not the policyholders in this case were able to claim for losses arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic, however, there were three further issues on appeal which will be of interest to the wider policyholder market: (i) whether or not Covid-19 was capable of being an incident; (ii) whether the extension applied on a “per premises” basis; and (iii) whether policy wording referring to “any one claim in the aggregate” contained a mistake capable of correction.

Can Covid-19 be an “incident”?

The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether, in the context of the relevant clause, Covid-19 could be an “incident likely to endanger human life.”

The Court of Appeal accepted that the word “incident” can be used synonymously with “event” or “occurrence” but, in ordinary usage, it would generally connote something more dependent on the context in which the word is used. In the context of this wording, “incident” was qualified by something that “endangers human life or property,” so as to require a response from a “policing authority”

It was common ground that “Covid-19 endangered human life because of the infectious nature of the disease; and taken together with all the other cases of Covid-19 in the country, it called for a response by the Secretary of State”.

Further, in this clause, it was clear that the terms “incident” and “occurrence” were being used interchangeably. Therefore, a case of Covid-19 could properly be regarded as an “incident,” and could amount to an “event” or “occurrence”.

Although this analysis differs from that of the Divisional Court in the FCA Test Case, where it was held (in the context of the Hiscox NDDA clause) that “it is a misnomer to describe the presence of someone in the radius with the disease as “an incident” for the purposes of the clause”, the Court of Appeal did not find that the point was wrongly decided by the Divisional Court.  Rather, its decision was based on the wording of the clause before it.

The finding that Covid-19 can be an “incident,” in certain contexts, is a potentially significant outcome for other policyholders with “incident” wordings. There are likely to be a number of claims out there that have been in cold storage due to an “incident” wording, which should now be revisited given this apparent thawing on the issue.

Per premises

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court’s finding that this wording provided cover on a per premises basis.

When considering whether the wording provided for cover on a per premises basis, the Court of Appeal focused on the specific wording of the clause, and in particular the fact that the insured peril was specific to each of the premises insured. A prevention or restriction of access to each premises would, therefore, give rise to a separate claim to which a separate limit would apply. The insurer’s focus on the defined term “Business” (i.e. that it would not “make sense to speak of the business of the premises as distinct from the business of the policyholder”) was found to place more weight on the definition that it would bear.

Further, the Court of Appeal noted that the policy drew no distinction between policyholders in the claimant group who owned or operated only one venue, and those who owned or operated multiple venues.  In those circumstances, interpreting the policy limit as applying separately to each policyholder rather than to each premises would be “somewhat capricious”.

This is an important finding for policyholders with more than one premises in circumstances where insurers are frequently seeking to limit losses to a single limit across multiple premises. Close attention should be paid to the specifics of the wording, as the nuance of the drafted wording and the policy as a whole will dictate whether a per premises argument can be sustained.

Correction

The insurer’s attempt to introduce an aggregate limit were unsuccessful in the absence of a clear mistake (or at least a mistake with a clear answer).

The insurer’s had attempted to rework the wording of the extension referring to “any one claim in the aggregate” to provide an annual aggregate limit by inserting the word “any one claim and in the aggregate”. The Court of Appeal found that while it was reasonably clear that something had gone wrong in the language, it was nonetheless far from obvious what solution the parties had intended. It was as likely that the insurer had intended for the limit to apply in the aggregate as it was that the limit was intended to apply to any one claim. The correction proposed by the insurer would result in the words “any one claim” being deprived of any meaning. Accordingly, the judge was correct to have rejected the insurer’s case of construction by correction at first instance.

This decision again confirms the principles in East v Pantiles (Plant Hire) Ltd and Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd, which were considered recently in another appellate Covid-19 decision, Bellini N/E Ltd v Brit UW Ltd. It serves as a stark reminder that the courts will usually be reluctant to correct mistakes, and the circumstances in which they might do so are limited to those where there is an obvious definitive answer.

Parting Comments

Despite a disappointing result on the meaning of “policing authority”, this decision has produced renewed hope for policyholders with similar issues in dispute, and it is far from the last word on the various NDDA wordings still out there. Further appeals arising from the Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE group of cases are listed for hearing early next year, in addition to other matters proceeding to trial in the commercial court.

Watch this space.

Authors

Joanna Grant, Managing Partner

Anthony McGeough, Senior Associate

by Fenchurch Law

A twist in the tale!: - the Court of Appeal throws up some surprises in the “At the Premises” judgment

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). 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 group of cases.

Watch this space.

Anthony McGeough is a Senior Associate at Fenchurch Law

by Anthony McGeough

Terrorism Law Reform: Compliance and Coverage for Property Owners

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill was confirmed by the King’s Speech on 7 November 2023 for the legislative agenda in the year ahead.  Also known as ‘Martyn’s Law’ in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was tragically killed in the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, the proposals are aimed at enhancing security and mitigating risks of terrorism in public venues such as music halls, stadiums, theatres, festivals and shopping centres.

Mandatory requirements would be imposed on operators of crowded premises throughout the UK to prepare for and seek to prevent terrorist attacks, overseen by a regulator with powers to issue enforcement notices and impose fines or criminal sanctions.  The new measures focus on risk assessment, planning, mitigation and security protection training, with the level of duty depending on the type of premises:

• Venues with capacity of 100 individuals or less fall outside the scope of the Bill. However, these premises are encouraged to adopt the spirit of the legislation and implement voluntary measures to reduce the risk (which may be relevant in the context of licensing applications).
• Venues with capacity over 100 people are ‘standard tier’ premises, required to undertake basic security measures including staff training, public awareness campaigns and development of a preparedness plan.
• Venues with capacity of 800 or more are ‘advanced tier’ premises subject to additional requirements including: notification to the regulator of the premises or event, and its designated senior individual, where the responsible person is a company; taking all reasonably practicable steps to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks or physical harm occurring, for example, bag searches and metal detectors in appropriate cases; and maintaining a security document evaluating the risk assessment and planned response, for submission to the regulator.
• Venues with capacity over 5,000 or hosting specific types of activities, such as major sporting events or concerts, will be subject to more stringent requirements covering the risk assessment and security planning process.

Government consultation is continuing with industry stakeholders on the scope of duties reasonably deliverable for standard tier locations, to strike a fair balance between public protection and the need to avoid excessive burdens on smaller premises.

The Home Affairs Select Committee raised concerns about proportionality, and the impact on small businesses or voluntary and community-run organisations.  Implementation costs of £2,160 for standard tier premises and around £80,000 for enhanced premises were estimated by the Home Office, over a ten year period, but these figures have been queried amid concern that costs will escalate.  The idea of staged implementation focusing initially on enhanced tier venues has been suggested by some commentators, whilst others believe this would increase the threat to smaller locations and put lives at risk.

Critics argue the draft Bill is not fit for purpose to adequately reduce terrorism risk, which may vary significantly based on the event or persons attending rather than the size of venue, especially since most provisions are directed towards mitigating the consequences of attacks, rather than preventing them from happening.  Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that most attacks since 2010 would be outside the scope of the Bill; and campaigners argue current exemptions for outdoor Christmas markets and mass sporting events, such as marathons, should be lifted.  Further improvements are recommended in areas including mandatory life-saving training, statutory provision for security to be considered in the design of new public buildings, and improved systems for procurement and training of security staff.

The events (re)insurance market is likely to see increased demand for terrorism-specific policies, or extensions to existing property programmes.  It will be easier in future to identify whether operators of premises affected by terrorist attacks took reasonable steps to minimise risk, and respond appropriately to such events, judged against the new mitigation guidelines.  Insurers will be apprehensive at the prospect of enhanced duties and liabilities, during the initial period whilst changes are introduced and understood, which may lead to increased casualty pricing or restricted terms of coverage.  The scope of management liability insurance should also be considered for businesses operating in this sector, to cover potential mistakes by directors and officers tasked with implementation of additional controls.

There have been 14 terror attacks in the UK since 2017, representing a complex and evolving risk affecting a broad range of locations.  Subject to fine-tuning during the process of detailed scrutiny through both Houses of Parliament, the new legislation is broadly welcomed as raising the bar on public safety, helping leisure, entertainment and retail premises to be better prepared and ready to respond to security threats.

Amy Lacey is a Partner at Fenchurch Law

by Amy Lacey

Challenging times for Zurich: insurer ordered to pay out on Covid 19 claim

World Challenge Expeditions Limited v Zurich Insurance Company Limited [2023] EWHC 1696 (Comm)

The court has held that, having operated a business travel policy in a certain way for nearly four years, Zurich was estopped from denying that it provided cover on that basis.

An estoppel by convention had arisen such that it would be inequitable for Zurich to resile from the common assumption between the parties as to the operation of the policy.

As such, the successful policyholder, World Challenge (represented by Fenchurch Law), was entitled to an indemnity of almost £9m, being the amount of refunds paid to its customers following the cancellation of its global programme of expeditions necessitated by the pandemic.

The court further criticised Zurich for its handling of the claim and the time that it taken to clarify its position.  This was a matter of utmost importance and urgency in circumstances where it was critical to World Challenge’s business and customer relations that it was able to confirm whether it had a covered claim.  Mrs Justice Dias commented that: “This is not an impressive performance even in the difficult circumstances of early 2020 and ordinary policyholders might well be appalled to think that a reputable insurance company could treat a long-standing and supposedly valued customer in this way”.

A full copy of the judgment can be found here.

Background

The policyholder, World Challenge, provides adventurous, “challenging” expeditions worldwide for secondary school students, or “challengers”.  As a result of the pandemic it was obliged to cancel nearly all of its booked expeditions for 2020.

The insurer, Zurich, provided World Challenge with wide ranging cover including cover for cancellation of trips by the challengers.

Prior to the pandemic, Zurich had handled and approved more than one hundred cancellation claims since 2016 in the amount of the refund paid to challengers. The amount of the refund, less an administration fee, was recorded against the aggregate deductible in the event of a trip cancellation. Prior to the onset of Covid-19, that aggregate deductible was never exhausted.

When the pandemic struck in early 2020, Zurich faced substantial claims for refunds to challengers for trips that would be cancelled in the coming months, and which would significantly exceed the aggregate deductible. World Challenge’s position was that Covid-19, and the mass trip cancellations which could eventuate, was precisely the type of ‘black swan’ event that it thought it had insurance cover for.  It sought confirmation of that cover from Zurich prior to cancelling the relevant trips and exposing itself to the millions of pounds of refunds to its customers that it would need to make as a result.

In light of the significant losses it now faced, Zurich, after an extended period of delays in confirming its position, in a complete volte-face sought to depart from the “common assumption” of cover for refunds and instead informed World Challenge that it only had cover (and only ever had cover) for irrecoverable third party costs (for example, hotel or airline costs which World Challenge had paid out and was unable to recover).

The claim

The issue before the court was the correct construction of the policy and whether Zurich was precluded by estoppel or collateral contract from denying that the policy provided the cover that World Challenge thought it had.

Mrs Justice Dias concluded that, although the policy in fact only covered irrecoverable third party costs,  Zurich’s previous conduct in agreeing claims in the amount of the refunds and setting them against the deductible had clearly conveyed to World Challenge that they shared its assumption as to the scope of cover and World Challenge was strengthened and confirmed in its own reliance on that assumption.

Zurich’s argument that the subjective understanding of its claims handlers was insufficient to establish any assumption on the part of the company was rejected.

Further, the court found that the delays in cancelling trips caused by Zurich’s delay in confirming its position on cover caused World Challenge to lose its opportunity to explore other avenues in order to maintain customer goodwill and manage its exposure.

It was therefore inequitable for Zurich to resile from the common assumption. Zurich had every opportunity to correct the error in handling claims, but took no steps to do so until such time as it became apparent that the aggregate deductible would be exceeded.

Conclusion

This judgment provides a welcome reminder to insurers about the importance of handling claims in a timely manner that responds to the needs of its customers, particularly in the face of a devastating loss with significant repercussions for the continued operation of its business.

Also welcome is the confirmation that the conduct of claims handlers in approving or rejecting claims will bind an insurer as they are the people charged with handling the claims on the company’s behalf.

From a legal perspective, in addition to being essential reading for anyone interested in the requirements of a variety of types of estoppel, practitioners will do well to take note of the comments made about the witness evidence and the dangers of putting forward statements that are inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents.  This made for an uncomfortable time for Zurich’s witnesses in the box, and should be a salutary tale, particularly given the spotlight on witness evidence in light of the recent changes to the rules in respect of trial witness statements.

Authors:

Joanna Grant, Partner

Rob Goodship, Associate Partner

Anthony McGeough, Senior Associate 

by Fenchurch Law

Not so peachy – a disappointing Covid-19 decision for policyholders

Bellini (N/E) Ltd trading as Bellini v Brit UW Limited [2023] EWHC 1545 (Comm)

In a month where Covid-19 decisions are coming in thick and fast, policyholders will be disappointed by the most recent judgment concerning a disease wording. A copy of the judgment can be found here.

On this occasion the policyholder, Bellini (N/E) Ltd, was issued with a policy by its insurer, Brit UW Limited, that contained an extension to business interruption cover for business interruption caused by damage arising from a notifiable disease manifested by any person whilst in the premises or within a 25-mile radius.

Disease wordings like these will be familiar to those who are acquainted with the FCA test case and Covid-19 litigation, but in this particular case the quirk is a reference to the defined term “damage” in the introductory paragraph to the extension. Damage within this policy was defined as “physical loss, physical damage, physical destruction”. However, it was common ground between the parties that there had been no physical loss of or damage to the policyholder’s premises or property.

The policyholder argued that policy provided both basic cover for physical damage and also extensions of cover for other matters that would not ordinarily result from or in physical damage. In particular, the provision of a radius clause of 25 miles for the manifestation of disease went beyond the basics of physical damage to the premises or property therein, which the policyholder asserted was reinforced by the court’s analysis of similar wordings in the FCA test case.

Among other arguments on the construction of the policy, the policyholder contended that if the extension only responded to physical damage it would “render any cover it provided illusory, and negate the purpose of the clause in providing cover for a notifiable disease that could manifest itself miles away”.

The court, however, was unpersuaded by the policyholder’s arguments, instead relying upon the “ordinary meaning” of the clause, which provided no cover in the absence of physical loss, damage or destruction. In particular, the court considered it to be significant that the clauses dealt with in the FCA test case were not expressed as to cover interruption caused by damage, and had been recognised as non-damage in that cover was not contingent on physical damage.

The court considered that the policyholder’s arguments effectively required it to re-write the policy contrary to the parties' express agreement and the established approach to contractual construction.

Comment

Recognising that the impact of a notifiable disease will be non-damage related losses, many wordings make it clear that the extension is intended to be triggered in the absence of physical damage, and that is how the clause would be understood to operate.

In circumstances where the parties agreed that a disease at the premises or within 25 miles of the premises does not cause physical damage, it is difficult to see what purpose, if any, can served by a clause that only provides cover for physical damage.

It is therefore difficult to reconcile the court’s attempts to give effect to the wording of the policy with what most policyholders (and we assume those insuring them) would expect to be covered when offering a 25-mile radius clause as part of the policy cover.

It is notable that the courts in the FCA test case grappled with similar difficulties on wordings where the standard form of certain clauses assumed the paradigm case of business interruption by reference to physical damage. The Supreme Court, albeit in the context of trends clauses, came to the view at [257] that the “reference to “damage” is inapposite to business interruption cover which does not depend on physical damage to insured property such as the cover with which these appeals are concerned. It reflects the fact that the historical evolution of business interruption cover was as an extension to property damage insurance. It was held by the court below, and is now common ground, that for the purposes of the business interruption cover which is the subject of these appeals, the term “damage” should be read as referring to the insured peril”. It appears that in the right circumstances the courts are not opposed to manipulating the wording of a policy to give it proper effect, and one might have expected the court in this matter to have taken a similar approach to the 25-mile radius clause.

Undoubtedly the market will be watching this one closely for any signs of an appeal, especially in light of the body of Covid-19 case law that appears to support a disease clause such as the one in dispute here.

Authors:

Anthony McGeough, Senior Associate

Joanna Grant, Partner

by Fenchurch Law