Home / Insurance & Reinsurance / Key developments / Coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption insurance

Legal News

Insurers appeal coronavirus (COVID-19) ExCeL business interruption insurance test case ruling

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published on: 20 June 2024
Published by a Law360 reporter

Article summary

Law360: Insurers launched an appeal on 18 June 2024 to overturn a landmark test case ruling that would provide cover for coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns for thousands of companies with 'at-the-premises' business interruption wording in their policies.

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Related documents:

4 News
View More
4 Practice notes
View More
Powered by Lexis+®

Related documents:

4 News
View More
4 Practice notes
View More

Popular documents

Insurer cannot move £4m coronavirus (COVID-19) dispute out of court (DC Bars Ltd v QIC Europe Ltd)

Law360, London: A London judge has rejected an insurer’s bid to force a UK restaurant and bar operator's claim for coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption cover into arbitration, ruling the insurer must address the claim in court because it is disputing its liability.

Micklefield clauses

Micklefield clausesWhat is a Micklefield clause?It is common for employee share plans to provide that, on termination of employment (or when an employee is given or receives notice of termination of employment), subsisting share awards will be forfeited and subsisting share options will lapse.It is

Financial clean break orders in family proceedings

Financial clean break orders in family proceedingsDuty of the court to consider a clean breakAlthough there is no presumption in favour of there being a financial clean break between parties on divorce, the court is under a duty to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise its powers so

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to