header-logo header-logo

Riots: what to do next?

11 August 2011
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Do not delay in seeking damages advises expert

Businesses and property owners affected by the looting and disturbance in London and major UK cities this week may be able to file insurance claims for damage caused by terrorism as well as for riot damage losses, say solicitors.

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain partner Stuart White warns businesses that most insurers require claims for riot damage to be made within seven days, or the claim may be rejected. This is because the insurer can then make a claim in the policy-holder’s name against the police under the Riots (Damages) Act 1886—but must do so within 14 days of the damage occurring.

Businesses without property insurance may be able to recover their losses directly from the police under 1886 Act.

White warns that any delay introduces “an unnecessary risk”.  However, he adds that compensation under the Act would not usually extend to financial losses while the business is unable to trade—this would normally only be recoverable by businesses with business interruption insurance.

Joanna Bhatia of the LexisPSL property team says businesses could also argue there was a political element—an anarchist or anti-capitalist basis—to the riots and claim for damage caused by terrorism.

Most commercial buildings insurance and business interruption policies provide cover against terrorist risks only up to £100,000 per event, he said, after which cover must be obtained from the Pool Reinsurance Company.

“Damage must be caused by an action certified by the Treasury as an act of terrorism,” she says.

“Insurance companies may have difficulty convincing Pool Re that the recent riots come under their definition of terrorism, despite the fact that some rioters have been reported as confirming that they were looting as a protest against taxes. The Pool Re definition is narrower than other definitions.

“Property owners may, therefore, decide that a safer bet is to claim under other heads in their general policy which will be drawn more widely (for example, under the malicious damage head).”

Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll