Covid-19 Business Interruption Timeline

The Covid-19 pandemic, and the resulting measures imposed by the UK government, caused financial losses to businesses around the country who were unable to trade as normal. As a result of this, policyholders made claims under their Business Interruption policies of insurance however many insurers have, and continue, to refuse to pay out under these policies.

Our Covid-19 Business Interruption timeline details the key developments in the ongoing dispute between policyholders and insurers.

If your business was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, and your have a potential or disputed claim for Business Interruption losses please contact our Covid-19 Business Interruption team or email covidbusinessinterruption@edwincoe.com and we can advise on your available options.

“At the Premises” Case due to be heard in Court of Appeal 18 June 2024

Bellini v Brit – Court of Appeal Judgment 30 April 2024

Bellini (N/E) Ltd trading as Bellini v Brit UW Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 435

In Bellini, the court of appeal dismissed the policyholders appeal and confirmed that there was no cover for losses which required physical loss or “damage”, despite the clause providing business interruption cover arising from infectious diseases. The court held that the wording of the clause was clearly deliberate and the fact that cover was limited did not justify rewriting the contract.

View the judgment here.

Gatwick Investment Ltd T/A Crowne Plaza London Gatwick Airport and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE 26 January 2024

Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance [2024] EWHC 124 (Comm)

In Gatwick & Others, which was a consolidated preliminary issues hearing involving 7 different claims, the main issues for determination were: 1) Coverage; 2) Limits; and 3) Furlough. On coverage, and in line with the previous decisions before it, the court concluded that the Supreme Court ruling on concurrent causation applied to NDDA clauses in the same way it did disease clauses. On Limits, the court held that the limit of liability applied separately to multiple insured entities under a composite policy but did not apply on a per premises basis where there was one insured with multiple premises as a result of the aggregating language in the policy. On Furlough, the court held that the payments were to be deducted from any payment due to policyholders.

The judgment is being appealed.