Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
On 17 March 2020, the number of known cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) exceeds 160,000. There are, very likely, a huge number of cases which have not yet been identified. Thousands have died. And by the time this piece is published the number of cases will have risen sharply. So will the number of deaths. On top of that, the cost to the global economy of the coronavirus pandemic is estimated in the trillions. Akhil Shah QC, Ben Lynch QC, Christopher Knowles and Max Evans, barristers of Fountain Court Chambers consider what this means for insurers and insureds and the implications on insurance law.
Many businesses will be pinning their hopes for survival on their insurance—insurers will be faced with a growing mountain of claims and losses. In this piece, we highlight some of the key issues which are likely to arise as a result of the pandemic, addressing business interruption cover, event cancellation cover, and late payment, before briefly touching on other issues which are likely to arise, and the future.
The insured must show that the trigger for cover has been engaged. If the cover was obtained with property insurance, and is triggered by physical damage to insured property, a debate is likely to ensue over whether temporary coronavirus contamination counts. Much will turn on the policy wording, along with factual, medical and scientific evidence.
But even if the insured has obtained more extensive cover, dealing specifically with disease, difficult issues may still arise. The form and wording of the cover will be critical. The cover may (for example) be for losses arising from an outbreak of specific diseases at the insured’s premises or within a certain distance of them. Then, the recency of the pandemic means that coronavirus is unlikely to be one of the specified diseases. The insured will have to hope that there is some wording catching variants of specified diseases, and that they can obtain good medical or scientific evidence to suggest that coronavirus is such a variant. Alternatively, the cover may be broad, capturing (for instance) ‘notifiable diseases’. And in many countries coronavirus has been designated as a notifiable disease: eg in England it was made notifiable on 5 March 2020. But even then, matters are not straightforward. Previous experience regarding SARS in the Hong Kong courts in New World Harbourview Hotel Co Ltd & others v ACE Insurance Ltd & others  HKCFA 21,  1 Lloyd’s IR 537 suggests that insurers may well argue (with success) that there is only cover from the date when coronavirus became notifiable (in the sense of there being a legal obligation to notify it to someone). Or that when it comes to the extent of the loss the appropriate comparison is between profits after the date when coronavirus became notifiable and immediately before that (when the disease may have been suppressing profits, despite not having become notifiable).
Other triggers may also be relevant, and raise their own difficult questions. For example, cover for losses arising from a denial of access to the insured’s premises as a result of the action of an authority may raise issues as to whether guidance to close is enough, or whether travel restrictions have hindered access in the relevant sense. Equally, extended cover capturing losses arising from damage to, or the closure of (for instance) a supplier’s premises will not just raise the kind of issues outlined above—whether contamination is property damage, whether guidance to close is enough, and so on—but also factual issues. Why for example, did a given factory in China close? Did it have to close, and, if so, when?
Causation may well also give rise to difficult questions. Suppose that an insured chose to close their business or operate certain measures to try and protect staff and clients, or out of a fear of contamination and greater losses. Is the proximate cause of any loss that choice, rather than the insured peril? Presumably, the insured will try and say ‘no’—their insurer may take the opposite tack. Equally, deciding whether lost profits were caused by the insured peril or the wider effects of the pandemic falling outside of the insured peril, or would have been suffered even without the insured peril, is likely to cause difficulty. For instance, if there was cover for losses arising from an outbreak of a notifiable disease on the insured’s premises, or within a certain radius, the insurer may argue the business would have no customers even without that particular outbreak, as people stayed at home to try and avoid the pandemic generally or outbreaks elsewhere, or to comply with government guidance. The same kind of argument may assist insurers who are able to rely on appropriately-worded trends clauses. See Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni General SpA (UK) (t/a Generali Global Risk)  EWHC 1186 (Comm).
Ultimately, the wording of the policy is—as always—key. But that wording is unlikely to be directly on point or easy to apply on the facts because of how recently coronavirus crossed the species barrier, and the extensive measures being taken to combat it. That leaves room for both insureds and insurers to try and interpret and apply the wording in their favour.
Many sporting and other events have been cancelled or postponed to try and inhibit the spread of the virus. This looks set to continue and the market can expect a rise in claims under event cancellation cover. These claims will raise similar issues to the business interruption claims considered above. For instance, does the cover only extend to cancellation due to outbreaks of certain listed diseases and if so, is coronavirus one? Or can it be brought within wording capturing variants of listed diseases? And why, precisely, was the event cancelled?
But this type of insurance also raises tough questions of its own. For example, if the event is cancelled based on guidance, or due to a concern about the spread of coronavirus, rather than at the direction of the authorities, is causation made out? Does that engage any exclusions? Equally, it may be that a dispute arises regarding the line between postponement and cancellation, for example at what point, if at all, does a postponement until further notice become in reality a cancellation? If there is no clear wording drawing a line between postponement and cancellation then the arguments, and the answer, may be less than straightforward. And insofar as the insured is under an obligation to mitigate their loss, the presence of contractual relationships with broadcasters, players or performers, and advertisers, as well as attendees, combined with the possibility of relying on force majeure provisions under those contracts, will generate issues as to whether the insured must rely on those provisions. Again, the policy wording is crucial but it may well not provide as clear an answer as it would under normal circumstances. The wording and its application will require careful thought.
This is just a sample of some of the key issues arising from the coronavirus pandemic. Others which may merit further consideration arise in the context of:
In the UK, the government has predicted that cases of coronavirus will peak within 10–14 weeks. It will take rather longer than that to resolve the insurance issues.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234