One of the issues for consideration by the Court of Appeal in London International Exhibition Centre PLC v Allianz Insurance PLC and Others previously discussed here [Business Interruption “Disease at the Premises” and Causation (UK) | Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot] was whether on a proper construction of the words “suffered by any
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
In this recent United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment discussed here, in addition to considering the meaning of “catastrophe” in the context of the Covid-19 losses and the treaty wording, the application of the “hours clause” was also considered.
The reinsurers argued that even if there was a catastrophe only business interruption
The Covid-19 insurance litigation continues in the United States of America.
The matters are now reaching the appeal courts.
In this September 2023 Nevada Supreme Court judgment the appeal court overturned the lower court’s decision to allow the case to proceed.
The court found that the Covid-19 virus did not constitute “direct physical loss or
In a July 2023 Judgment, the High Court considered whether a commissioner of oaths is able to commission a document where a deponent is not physically present at commissioning.
The court was required to consider whether a founding affidavit to an application as well as the replying affidavit had been properly commissioned in compliance
In this judgment the insured restaurant argued that the requirement in the murder, suicide or disease extension that the interruption or interference with the insured business be caused by damage did not require physical damage.
It was common cause that there had been no physical loss or damage to the insured premises or property used
In this high court judgment the court considered whether “at the premises” disease cover entailed the same approach to proximate causation as the disease cover considered by the Supreme Court in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Limited [2021] UK SC 1.
The relevant wording of the policy in the lead action read:
“The
In April 2023 the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that a tenant may claim a remission of rental where vis major interferes with the tenant’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the property, unless the terms of the lease provide otherwise. However, if the premises are sub-let there will be no interference with the head tenant’s
In this recent Namibian High Court judgment, the insurer argued that the policy was invalid, and could not be concluded, because the formation of an insurance contract depends on the happening of a specified uncertain event and that at the time of the conclusion of the policy the event was already certain.
The insurer
In this judgment the Supreme Court of Appeal decided that the lessor was entitled to evict its tenant as a result of non-payment of rental because the tenant’s pleas that it could not pay rent because of the Covid-19 pandemic could not excuse non-payment from September 2020.
The court said that it was trite that