In this, second, Australian test case for business interruption claims relating to Covid-19 the court said that “[A] policy of insurance is assumed to be an agreement which the parties intend to produce a … businesslike interpretation … …a construction that avoids capricious, unreasonable, inconvenient or unjust consequences, is to be preferred where the words
There has been a plethora of Covid-19 policy coverage litigation across the United States. Absent non-damage extensions under business interruption policies the courts have had to consider whether amongst other things government restrictions on businesses including shutdown orders constituted interruption of business caused by loss to property insured. That included whether those restrictions on businesses
A claim under a business interruption policy generally requires a valid claim under the material damage section of the policy. And the damage must occur during the currency of the policy.
In TKC London Limited v Allianz Insurance PLC [2020] EWHC 27 10 (Comm.), the insured operated a café in London. Following the Covid-19
In South Africa and the United Kingdom, coronavirus coverage disputes are centring around the interpretation of various non-damage extensions provided under the policy’s business interruption section.
In North America, both in Canada and the United States, the focus has been whether COVID-19 caused direct physical loss or damage to the insured property triggering business interruption
Readers will have seen the recent Guardrisk judgment. The applicant, a Cape Town restaurant, sought urgent declaratory relief that the insurer was obliged to indemnify it in terms of the business interruption section of the policy for loss suffered as a result of the closure of the restaurant from 26 March 2020.
The infectious
In July 2012 a fire damaged equipment vital to the production of a steel pipe manufacturing plant in Arkansas. The fire was a covered peril and loss of business income and extra expenses were also covered. The court rejected the insured’s claim for an additional $14 million in mitigation costs incurred allegedly as ‘necessary expenses’
One of an insurance broker’s many duties is to see that the client has not under-insured. A broker may not have to advise the client on the correct sum to be insured. That may, for instance, need the advice of an expert such as an auditor in the case of business interruption insurance. But the