header-logo header-logo

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

Riots: what to do next?

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—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll