Skip to main content

News story

January 31, 2021

Pandemic insurance claims set for settlement following ruling

As coronavirus continues its freeze on normal life, with strict lockdown measures back in place, many businesses will breathe a sigh of relief following January 2021's Supreme Court ruling confirming when business interruption insurance policies should pay out during a pandemic.

Lockdown and tier restrictions since March 2020 have seen many businesses temporarily closing or making significant operational reductions for weeks or months at a time, resulting in huge damage to their operations and loss of income.

Many companies had made insurance claims but were refused a payout when insurers argued the pandemic was not covered by their business interruption policy wording. But now, thousands have been told they are covered for losses caused by the pandemic after the ruling by Britain’s highest court.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others clears the way for millions of pounds to be paid for business interruption cover for losses caused by infectious diseases.

The case related to policies which did not explicitly specify which infectious diseases were covered and was brought by the Financial Conduct Authority as a test case, representing policyholders with 21 different policy wordings, to try and resolve the dispute over when compensation should be paid.

These include whether it was due if a business closed in line with government guidance, rather than as a legal requirement, and whether losses could be claimed for the overall impact of the pandemic, not just where cases of the disease were known to have occurred in a geographic radius of the business.

Typically, the policy may say that the claim must relate to a notifiable disease within a radius of 25 miles; generally, businesses could not prove that their losses were resulting from the disease occurring in that radius, so their claims were being refused.

Commercial Litigation partner and Head of Dispute Resolution, M. Qaiser Khanzada, said:

“Perhaps the most important aspect of the court’s judgment is the ruling that compensation should be related to what a business would have generated in normal times, rather than the potentially reduced losses during the pandemic. This will be very welcome news to those businesses with this sort of policy in place and was significant in overturning an earlier ruling and setting a precedent for the future.

Not all business interruption policies include cover for infectious diseases, but anyone who believes they now have a valid claim must have it agreed by their insurers. This will require the business to demonstrate how their losses are comprised and how they are covered by the wording in their own policy, as each policy tends to have its own unique wording requiring interpretation. It’s not an easy task and we are likely to see further individual legal battles ahead.”

According to the Association of British Insurance Brokers (ABI) pandemic insurance is not generally available anywhere in the world and most business cover is restricted to standard commercial insurance policies to cover against day-to-day risks such as fire, flood, theft and accidents involving employees.

The ABI has estimated that insurers in the UK will pay out over £1.2 billion in claims related to the pandemic, of which £900 million will be for business interruption.

Even where businesses have business interruption cover, few choose one that provides for claims due to a notifiable or infectious disease and those that do will usually find a list of the specific diseases covered. Policies often only apply when the disease is present at the business premises to cover the interruption to trade caused by an illness such as Legionnaires’ disease or Norovirus and where the building needs to be closed and cleaned to deal with the specific incident.

If your insurer has refused a claim under your business interruption insurance policy due to the current Pandemic, speak to M. Qaiser Khanzada today to explore the validity of the reasons for the refusal.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • The Employment Rights Act is a call to action for employers 
    A new year, a new employment framework: what employers need to know about the Employment Rights Act passed by parliament in December 2025.


    Read more
  • Dilapidations explained: What commercial tenants and landlords need to know
    Dilapidations are a common source of dispute at the end of a commercial lease. They can involve significant sums of money and often come as an unwelcome surprise to tenants who believed they had left a property in reasonable condition. Understanding


    Read more
  • The role of due diligence in corporate transactions
    In corporate transactions, due diligence is a key stage that usually follows agreement of Heads of Terms, allowing the Buyer to investigate the target company or its assets before committing to the deal.


    Read more
  • Love in later life and the inheritance tax trap
    Increasingly, lawyers are seeing couples who have chosen to live together rather than marry, sometimes for many years, without fully appreciating how differently the law treats them, particularly when it comes to inheritance tax and financial protect


    Read more
  • Understanding Heads of Terms in corporate transactions
    Heads of terms are a crucial first step in corporate transactions. Learn what they include, why they matter, and how they shape successful deals.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Amish Bristol, January 2026
    Absolutely brilliant, fast, professional, clear and delivered a robust service “Recent mortgage oversight from Ben Marks and Anne was superbly dealt with, and I intend on moving all my business to them. For a big firm, they really do pay attent

  • Client, January 2026
    Excellent experience “The process of my work was quick and effective.”

  • Vicky, January 2026
    Clear, friendly, helpful “Very efficient and helpful with arrangements for my will.”

  • R Cook, December 2025
    Settlement Sorted “Grayson Stuckey was great. Efficient and friendly with all aspects of the support provided. We worked well together and achieved a positive outcome. Recommended.”

  • Ivan Naisbitt, December 2025
    More than just a service “Michael Davies has been representing me for about 35 years, and I cannot recommend him or RIAA Barker Gillette (UK) highly enough. Aside from the normal conveyancing, he is always on hand to advise and guide you throug

Read more
Send this to a friend