Skip to content

Business interruption insurance: are your business losses covered during the COVID-19 crisis?

Colin Piercey and Sam Ward

During this unprecedented crisis, almost all businesses have been negatively affected. Some have been forced to shut down entirely while others have been severely curtailed in their ability to earn income. A question at the forefront of many business-owners’ minds is whether or not their insurance can assist. The answer will likely depend on whether or not their insurance policy includes business interruption coverage, and the scope of that coverage.

Business interruption insurance is aimed at protecting the income of the insured during a period of shutdown. Typically, this type of insurance is added onto property insurance policies and triggered by damage to insured property resulting from typical events such as fire, windstorm or other natural disaster. For example, a manufacturing business that has suffered fire damage to its manufacturing plant and equipment may have to close for a period of time to conduct repairs and get plant and equipment back up and running.

Less commonly, business interruption insurance may be written or extended to cover loss of business income which does not result from the loss of, or damage to, property. If coverage is available, business interruption insurance would typically pay an insured’s loss of profits and any continuing expenses.

Here are a few questions that business owners should be asking:

Do I have business interruption insurance?

For many business-owners, the answer to this first question may be obvious. For others, it may not be, seeing as how business interruption insurance is often purchased as an add-on to an existing property insurance policy, and not commonly a stand-alone policy.

Business owners should look at their existing policy, beginning with the declarations or coverage page. In particular, close attention should be made to determine if there are any extensions or endorsements to the policy that provide for business interruption insurance.

Am I covered?

Commercial insurance policies cover insured “perils”. A “peril” is the event that triggers the coverage. Commercial insurance policies will generally cover either named perils or be all risk.  Policies covering named perils will only cover losses caused by perils specifically listed in the policy, subject to any exclusions. Examples of named perils in a typical property insurance policy include “fire” or “windstorm”.  Comprehensive, or “all risk” policies will cover losses caused by any peril unless specifically excluded.

While business interruption policies are not standardized, most policies will contain language indicating that the insurer will pay for the actual loss of “business income” due to the “necessary suspension” of operations during the “period of restoration”. Traditional policies will require that three conditions be met in order to trigger coverage: (1) direct physical loss or damage; (2) of covered property; (3) resulting from a covered cause of loss.

Of particular note in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis is the first requirement: that there be physical loss or damage.

As noted above, traditionally, business interruption insurance was meant to protect a business’ income stream after it had sustained some kind of damage to its physical operations, for example due to a fire or flood. Economic loss without a tangible physical loss to accompany it will often be insufficient to trigger coverage. For this reason, most policyholders will likely not be covered for interruptions related to COVID-19.

However, insured parties should examine their policies carefully to see whether or not there is specific coverage for interruptions caused by non-physical events. For example, some policies may even provide specific coverage in the event of an “epidemic”, “pandemic” or access to the premises being prohibited by a “civil authority”.

Beyond the common requirement that there be a physical loss of, or damage to, property, there are other requirements to think about in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. One of these is that there be a total cessation of business. Traditional policies often will not provide coverage in the case of a mere downturn of business. This was confirmed recently by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Le Treport Wedding & Convention Centre Ltd. v. Co-operators Insurance¹. In interpreting the words “interruption of business” in a policy, the Court found that these words indicated a requirement that the business cease operating.

Whether or not you will be covered for an interruption caused by COVID-19 will ultimately depend on the wording of your policy and the particular facts of your business, so be sure to examine the policy carefully and watch out for (1) a requirement that there be some physical damage; (2) explicit language covering losses arising from specified risks such as “epidemics”; and/or prohibition of access to the premises, and (3) a requirement that the business be completely shut down.

What exactly is covered?

Recognizing that we are currently in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis and what occurs in the coming weeks remains uncertain, another important consideration in determining the extent of coverage available, is the length of the indemnity period. There are typically two types of policies covering two different time periods:

  1. Limited coverage covers the time until the business resumes and damage has been repaired or property replaced. It will not cover any losses following the reopening of the business even if that business has not regained its previous level of earnings. Coverage will also expire at the end of a maximum defined indemnity period, regardless of whether or not the business has reopened.
  2. Extended coverage covers the time until a business resumes its normal, pre-interruption level of business, subject again to any maximum defined indemnity period.

There might also be a requirement in a policy that the insured exercise due diligence in seeking to rebuild and replace its damaged property, or more relevantly in the present circumstance, otherwise attempt to mitigate its lost earnings.

Coverage may also exist for extra expenses that a business must incur in remaining operational during a period where it has been affected by loss or damage. For example, if a business must move to a new premises and incur rental costs for equipment, these costs might be covered under a policy that includes extra expenses. Expenses incurred in attempting to mitigate loss, if economically justified, will often be covered.

What this means for you

Business interruption insurance is one of the more complicated forms of insurance offered. As noted, it is only triggered in certain circumstances and is always subject to certain exclusions and limitations. Business owners should examine their policies carefully and where necessary, seek legal advice on the coverages available to them.


¹ 2019 ONSC 3041.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Insurance Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top