header-logo header-logo

04 January 2021
Issue: 7917 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Insurance / reinsurance , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Test case reassures on COVID insurance

Lawyers have hailed a Supreme Court judgment on COVID-19 insurance cover, which could save thousands of jobs

The test case, Financial Conduct Authority & Ors v Arch Insurance [2021] UKSC 1, concerned the extent of coverage for business interruption under standard policies. Handing down judgment last week, the court considered 21 sample wordings as well as issues of causation, providing clarity for small businesses affected by restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as the particular policies chosen for the test case, the judgment could potentially affect ‘some 700 types of policies across over 60 different insurers and 370,000 policyholders,’ the Justices said in their judgment.

The proceedings were brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), representing the policyholders, under the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme. The Justices looked at disease clauses, prevention of access clauses, hybrid clauses and trends clauses. They dismissed the insurers’ appeals and allowed the FCA’s appeals.

Stephen Netherway, partner at Devonshires, said: ‘Business owners across the UK will be jubilant at this incredibly important, final court judgment that will potentially see hundreds of millions of pounds paid out to companies in desperate need.

‘The knock-on effect of this landmark judgement, which brings this legal battle to a close, could see thousands of jobs and livelihoods being saved. Had the insurers won it would have spelled further, fatal, economic misery for those just surviving businesses.’

Dene Rowe, partner at insurance law firm Keoghs, said: ‘The focus will invariably turn to the speed of implementing the judgement and, with insurers now facing a potential avalanche of claims from policyholders, it is likely that insurers will require a technology focused approach to ensure the prompt settlement of claims.

‘Failure to respond in an accelerated way will likely risk a major reputational risk to commercial insurance brands.’

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll