In a July 2025 judgment the UK high court held, not surprisingly, that there can be no business interruption claim for a business that has not yet commenced operating because there was never any business carried out at the insured property, nor any revenue earned there.
The policyholder sued for alleged business interruption losses because
In the second judgment in Bath Racecourse, one of the questions the court had to consider was the meaning of the phrase “any one loss” in the composite policy under consideration providing cover against material damage and business interruption.
The court found that the phrase “any one loss” meant each new trigger event. A
In this Court of Appeal judgment of 6 September 2024 in London International Exhibition Centre PLC v Allianz Insurance PLC and Others the court considered what constituted the insured peril occurring “at the premises” of the insured.
The relevant policies contained “at the premises” infectious disease extension wordings.
It had been agreed or
A February 2023 High Court judgment which dealt with a Covid-19 business interruption claim under the business interruption non-damage extension considered the nature of a composite and joint insurance policy.
On the facts the court was satisfied that the third applicant was a joint insured under the policy. The court also held that the second
In this English court judgment, the parties were in dispute whether the Indemnity Period begins with the commencement of the interruption or interference with the insured business or with the occurrence of the Covered Event.
The definition of Indemnity Period in the policy read:
“Indemnity Period means the period of time during which interruption
In this October 2022 judgment, the English high court found that the cover for Additional Increased Cost of Working (AICW) was limited to those costs incurred by the insured that were not “economic” Increased Cost of Working (ICW). The costs are economic if the increased costs and expenses have the effect of diminishing or
While this Ohio Appellate Court judgment found that the insured did not suffer direct physical loss or damage so as to warrant coverage, it also considered the application of the virus exclusion in the policy
The exclusion reads:
“We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following.
This Californian Appeal Court judgment previously discussed here (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3)) was also required to consider the insured’s argument that the Civil Authority Coverage Clause applies because the government orders were made in direct response to the continued and increasing presence of the Coronavirus, a dangerous physical condition,
In this Californian Court of Appeal judgment previously discussed here (Part 1 and Part 2) the insured also argued, to support its contention that it incurred a suspension of operations caused by a direct physical loss of or damage to property, that no express exclusion for loss or damage resulting “from any virus”
The Californian Court of Appeal in this judgment and discussed here also considered whether the insured’s business was suspended due to direct physical loss of its property.
The policy required suspension of operations caused by direct physical loss of property.
The insured argued that regardless of the physical presence of the Covid-19 virus, it had