Insurers may have to pay out to hundreds of thousands of British firms who had business interruption claims turned down during the pandemic, following a landmark ruling.
The High Court today ruled in favour of policyholders in a test case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
The Court ruled on a representative sample of 17 policy wordings by 16 insurers. It found that most, although not all, of the clauses provide cover.
Interim FCA boss Christopher Woolard today said: “We brought the test case in order to resolve the lack of clarity and certainty that existed for many policyholders making business interruption claims and the wider market.”
“We are pleased that the Court has substantially found in favour of the arguments we presented on the majority of the key issues. Today’s judgment is a significant step in resolving the uncertainty being faced by policyholders.”
Two action groups – the Hiscox Action Group and the Hospitality Insurance Group Action – were given permission to intervene on behalf of certain policyholders.
The Hiscox Action Group hailed the business interruption insurance test case as a “landmark victory”. Its law firm Mishcon de Reya has written to insurer Hiscox for interim payments to be made to policyholders.
The FCA said policyholders with affected claims can expect to hear from their insurer within the next seven days.
Huw Evans, the director-general of the Association of British insurers, said: “Insurers have supported this fast-track court process led by the FCA… The judgment divides evenly between insurers and policyholders on the main issues. The national lockdown was an unprecedented situation that posed understandable questions of interpretation for some business insurance contracts.”
“Individual insurers will be analysing the judgment, engaging with the regulator, taking account of the appeal process and keeping their customers informed in the period ahead”, he added.
Michael Frisby, a Stevens & Bolton dispute resolution partner who represented a group 34 nurseries whose policy wording was tested in the case, said it was a “shining example of regulatory intervention”.
“Whilst the judgment doesn’t determine every claim or point of confusion, it provides clear guidance to identify which claims are covered in the wake of the pandemic. It will have the effect of reducing the disputes over coverage arising from the pandemic, and should also help resolve some individual disputes”, he added.