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

  • Pension and inheritance tax changes from April 2027: why now is the time to review your will and estate plan
    From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and pension death benefits are expected to be included in a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes. This article explains what the changes could mean for families, pension nominations, wills, chari


    Read more
  • What happens when company owners disagree? The key to keeping private companies running smoothly
    Director and shareholder disagreements can quickly disrupt a business if they are not addressed early. This article explains what disputes can mean for a private company, how they can be avoided, and how legal advice can help protect stability and su


    Read more
  • SMEs urged to review risks as liability rules expand
    New criminal liability rules taking effect on 29 June 2026 will make it easier to prosecute businesses of any size where senior managers commit offences while acting on the organisation’s behalf.


    Read more
  • AI-written grievances add new pressure for employers
    AI is making it easier for employees to produce detailed, formal-looking grievances that refer to legal concepts and workplace rights. For employers, the key is to look beyond the language, identify the core concern and follow a fair, consistent grie


    Read more
  • What to check in a new build contract
    Buying a new build home can be exciting, but the legal process carries important risks. From long-stop dates and mortgage deadlines to specifications, deposits, service charges and warranties, early legal advice can help protect your position before


    Read more

What they say...

  • Client, June 2026
    Trusts services “Very helpful service which solved our problem.”

  • Client, June 2026
    Probate Services “We used Patrice Lawrence to deal with our parents’ probate, and she handled the case promptly, professionally and with the respect due for a matter of this nature.”

  • Client, May 2026
    Inspired confidence “Charlotte was assured and thorough, as well as being friendly and warm.”

  • Client, May 2026
    Charlotte is great “Charlotte Barbaroussis has been efficient, professional and clear at all times.”

  • Linda Grant, April 2026
    LPA Property and Financial Affairs / Health and Welfare Update “This update was carried out in a timely fashion and in detail. Many thanks to Charlotte Barbaroussis.”

Read more
Send this to a friend