Business interruption and COVID-19: A UK perspective
Daniel MacKenzie and James Galsworthy
On January 15, 2021, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court (“Court”) issued a decision which is likely to be viewed as good news for policy holders who have endured business interruption losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
In response to the widening denial of business interruption claims under the standard wording of insurance policies, the Financial Conduct Authority, the regulator of various UK insurers, advanced a test case with the aim of providing interpretive guidance from the courts to the insurance market for the interpretation of certain standard clauses in insurance contracts.
While not binding in Canada, the analysis undertaken by the UK Supreme Court in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others, [2021] UKSC 1 will be informative to Canadian decision makers where litigation ensues following the denial of coverage in relation to the following types of clauses:
- Disease clauses: Clauses which, in general, provide for cover for business interruption losses resulting from the occurrence of a notifiable disease, such as COVID-19, at or within a specified distance of the business premises;
- Prevention of access clauses: Clauses which, in general, provide for cover of business interruption losses resulting from public authority intervention preventing or hindering access to, or use of, the business premises;
- Hybrid clauses: Clauses which combine main elements of the disease and prevention of access clauses; and
- Trends clauses: Clauses which, in general, provide for business interruption loss to be quantified by reference to what the performance of the business would have been had the insured peril not occurred.
Further widening the decision of the High Court, the Court expanded the notion that “restrictions imposed” to prevent access must be undertaken by “force of law.” Additionally, the interpretation of an “inability to use” one’s premises as a result of the restrictions imposed was also widened, such that it is not required that the whole of the premises be unusable for any business purpose. For example, a restaurant may only be able to offer takeout service, while still being covered for losses stemming from its inability to use its premises for the dine-in aspect of its business as a result of COVID-19.
The analysis undertaken by the UK Supreme Court will be informative though non-binding to judicial decision makers in Canada where litigation ensues with regard to these types of clauses, which are also frequently found in the Canadian insurance market.
Archive
Kathleen Leighton The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (“CETA”) includes mobility provisions between Canada and European Union (“EU”) member states, providing a useful route for investors, contractual service providers, independent professionals, intra-company transferees, and…
Read MoreWe are pleased to present the second installment of Beyond the border, a quarterly publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2020 Proxy season, you should be aware of some of the regulatory developments and institutional investor guidance that is likely to impact disclosure to, and interactions with, shareholders. This update highlights…
Read MoreJennifer Thompson Nova Scotia’s Premier’s Office has today made an unexpected announcement regarding several changes to be made to Nova Scotia’s minimum wage and partial hours rules, with effect from April 1, 2020. Additional increase…
Read MoreKathleen Leighton For individuals whose Permanent Resident Cards (“PR Cards”) have expired, it can be a time of panic. “Did I lose my status?”, “Do I have to leave the country immediately?”, “Can I still…
Read MoreDante Manna The Nova Scotia Government is seeking input by way of public survey or written submissions on proposed changes to family property law that would, among other things, affect pension division between former spouses.…
Read MoreAtlantic Canada experienced a number of legal developments in 2019 that regional employers should be aware of as they plan for the year ahead. Click the image below to read our 2019 year in review,…
Read MoreG. Grant Machum & Richard Jordan On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67. This case involved a…
Read MoreLevel Chan and Dante Manna In this update we provide what we see on the employee benefits and pension plans legal horizon in 2020 and beyond, along with a review of some highlights from 2019.…
Read MoreJennifer Thompson The Accessible Canada Act (“Act”) came into force on July 11, 2019, ushering in the start of a march towards a Canada without barriers for persons with disabilities. While the Act only applies…
Read More