
The FCA argued that the pandemic and its consequences, including lockdown, should be treated as a single cause of the lost income. The case opposed eight insurance companies, with a likely effect on claims by some 350,000 small and medium-sized firms, including estate and lettings agencies.
The judgment and beyond
Whilst complex and running over 150 pages, the judgment deals with many issues, a summary of which can be found here. In order to establish liability under the sample of policy wordings, the FCA argued for policyholders that the ‘disease’ and/or ‘denial of access’ clauses provide cover in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the trigger for cover caused policyholders’ losses.
The judgment said that most, but not all, of the disease clauses in the sample provide cover. Additionally, certain denial of access clauses in the sample provide cover, but this depends on the detailed wording of the clause and how the business was affected by the Government’s response to the pandemic, for example, whether the business was subject to a mandatory closure order and whether the business was ordered to close completely.
Most insurers claim such policies do not cover closures forced by pandemics and could lodge an appeal, asserting the pandemic and its fallout had to be separated into components, with some not triggering payouts.