MD Aadil Intern at Ubadvocate Email: Contact:-9599395899 Topic: - How To Claim Business Losses Due To Covid-19 Research Report: - 1
MD Aadil Intern at Ubadvocate Email: Contact:-9599395899 Topic: - How To Claim Business Losses Due To Covid-19 Research Report: - 1
MD Aadil Intern at Ubadvocate Email: Contact:-9599395899 Topic: - How To Claim Business Losses Due To Covid-19 Research Report: - 1
Intern at ubAdvocate
Email : [email protected]
Contact :- 9599395899
2. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Fire damage
Damage from wind or falling objects
Lightning damage
Theft
10.ecial Perils Policy, commonly known as property policy. “If the insured
plant or office is shut down due to any damage or fire, the company is
eligible for claims. But now, factories are shut due to lockdown. Any
business interruption loss out of lockdown is not covered under the
policy terms,” said an official.
11.However, insurers have given relief to corporates, which shut their units
for more than a month. Their policies will be allowed to be operational
despite the clause that if a unit is shut for 30 days continuously, the
policy cover will lapse. The General Insurance Council (GI Council), the
official representative body of general insurers, has managed to get this
relief for India Inc from the general insurers for the “unoccupied
properties” for more than one month till May 3 under the property
policy. This means companies can claim insurance if the property is
damaged due to fire or any other loss even if the factory or unit is not
operational during the period till May 3.
12.As per the GI Council, a Property Policy specifies if the building insured
or containing the insured property becomes unoccupied and so remains
for a period of more than 30 days (not applicable for dwellings), the
insurance claims may not be applicable if the property affected — before
the occurrence of any loss or damage — obtains the endorsement and
continuation of coverage.
13. On 15 January 2021, judgment was handed down in the leapfrog appeal
heard by the Supreme Court in the test case brought by the Financial
Conduct Authority in relation to the responsiveness of business
interruption insurance in the context of loss caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.
14. The appeals made by insurers were rejected on all grounds. The appeals
by the FCA and the Hiscox Action Group, who had brought limited
appeals after being largely successful in the High Court, were
substantially accepted. The decision will affect many thousands of
policyholders and will result in the payment of claims in the hundreds of
millions, if not billions. We summarise some of the key points of the
Supreme Court’s decision, below.
15. The Supreme Court held that the ‘disease clauses’ only applied where
there had been an occurrence of COVID-19 within the specified radius of
the insured premises. It departed from the High Court by determining
that small differences in construction, such as the use of the word ‘event’
versus ‘incident,’ would affect the validity of the clause. This was a
narrower approach than that taken by the High Court, where the
construction of some clauses removed the radius requirement.
16. However, the Supreme Court tempered this part of its decision through
its careful assessment of causation, ensuring that policyholders would
not be denied claims by strict rules on the geographical locations of
COVID-19 cases. It held that coverage is not restricted to business
interruption that occurs only as a result of COVID-19 cases within the
area.
17.The Supreme Court also ruled that the case of Orient-Express Hotels
Ltd v Assicurazioni General SpA [2010] EWHC 1186 had been wrongly
decided. This case, which overwhelmingly favoured insurers, allowed
insurers to deny claims in circumstances where there are two
simultaneous business interruptions that occur concurrently, on the
basis that the ‘but for’ test was not met. Insurers attempted to rely on
the Orient Express ruling in these proceedings to argue that
policyholders would have suffered similar loss as a result of the
pandemic generally, even if the insured risk (i.e. a disease outbreak in
the local area, or public authority restrictions) had not occurred.
Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that both loss factors would be
covered, providing they emanated from the same underlying cause, and
that it was not always necessary to satisfy the ‘but for’ test when
considering the question of causation. This aspect of the judgment is of
particular significance to those in the insurance industry and will have
much broader implications for insurers in the future.
Thank you.