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
Stewart McKelvey is pleased to announce the creation of Discovery: Atlantic Education and the Law, a publication specifically designed for universities and colleges. We know it is not always easy for institutions in Atlantic Canada…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Final Report of the Select Committee on Cannabis was released September 1, 2017. The Committee was appointed by the Legislature of New Brunswick and was mandated to conduct…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor A child and her adoptive parents “found themselves caught up in a judge-made vortex of uncertainty and delay” when a judge made a “self-directed constitutional reference” instead of issuing an adoption order, prolonging…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction The recent Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision in Dyack v Lincoln is a nice case study on how to work through a limitations issue. It arrives almost two years after the “new”…
Read MoreBrian G. Johnston, QC While the concept of good faith is not new to employment law, its limits and implications remain uncertain. In a recent decision, Avalon Ford v Evans 2017 NLCA 9, the Newfoundland…
Read MoreLevel Chan and Dante Manna On August 9, 2017, the Nova Scotia Superintendent of Pensions announced temporary solvency relief for defined benefit pension plans available effective August 8, 2017. The changes allow pension plan sponsors…
Read MoreKevin Landry Edmonton wants “Cannabis Lounges”, Nova Scotia Landlords don’t want tenants to smoke marijuana in their rental homes, and Calgary City Council contemplates a private recreational cannabis system. The old adage of “Location. Location.…
Read MoreJon O’Kane and Jamie Watson Legal cannabis will have numerous implications for insurers. The federal Cannabis Act (discussed here), the provincial acts (discussed here) and the regulations (discussed here) are all going to add layers…
Read MoreVasu Sivapalan and Ben Whitney Legalized and regulated cannabis is on track to become a reality in Canada in just under a year (on or before July 1, 2018). This will create a number of…
Read MoreFurther to our Client Update on June 15 titled, “Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick”, the deadline for initial registration under the Lobbyists’ Registration Act of New Brunswick has been extended from…
Read More