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

  • How to protect your brand: A beginner’s guide
    Trademark protection for businesses explained, including how to register a trademark in England and Wales and the key steps to protect your brand.


    Read more
  • Inheritance Act claims and letters of wishes: Managing risk in estate planning
    This article explains who can bring a claim, the strict time limits involved, and the risks for executors and beneficiaries. It also explores how a carefully drafted Letter of Wishes can provide valuable context, demonstrate intention, and help reduc


    Read more
  • Confusion as Companies House rolls out identity checks for directors 
    Company directors are being urged to familiarise themselves with new identity verification requirements being introduced by Companies House, as confusion is reported around how and when the checks must be completed.


    Read more
  • Transactional documents in a corporate sale: What sellers should know
    Once due diligence is complete and terms are agreed, the focus turns to negotiating the transactional documents that underpin a share or asset sale. This guide explains the purpose of the key documents involved in business acquisitions and why carefu


    Read more
  • Employer warning as immigration raids hit record high 
    Employers are being urged to review their recruitment procedures after new figures revealed that immigration enforcement raids have reached record levels across the UK.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Laura Kelly, February 2026
    Review of legal guidance received “I recently worked with Patrick Simpson on my settlement agreement. Patrick guided me through every stage with exceptional care and diligence. He kept the process moving efficiently, always updating me promptly

  • Prasanna Sooriakumaran, February 2026
    “Really good, especially at dealing with the company that tried to overplay their hand. I highly recommend.”

  • Sharla Munian, February 2026
    Outstanding Legal Support and a Brilliant Result “I cannot recommend RIAA Barker Gillette highly enough. My solicitor supported me throughout a very challenging property litigation matter, and thanks to her expertise, dedication, and strategic

  • Client, February 2026
    Very good service in disagreement with architect “RIAA assisted me in a conflict I had with my architect, who wanted to overcharge me. The end result was satisfactory, with invoices reasonable despite being slightly higher than expected!”

  • Sharla Munian, February 2026
    Outstanding Solicitor Who Delivered the Outcome I Hoped For “After a number of years navigating a complex financial settlement following my separation, my solicitor has been incredible from start to finish. Their professionalism, patience, and

Read more
Send this to a friend