Tag archives: COVID-19

Insurance and a specified uncertain event (Namibia)

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
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 argued … Continue reading

Rental, covid-19 and impossibility to pay rent

Photo of Donald DinniePhoto of Daniel BreierBy Donald Dinnie and Daniel Breier on Posted in Insurance
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 … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption claims, savings and government assistance (UK)

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance, Uncategorized
In these October 2022 judgments (judgment 1 and judgment 2), the court held that government furlough payments were to be deducted from loss calculations as savings. The insured’s argument that the payments were simply a reimbursement of employment costs was rejected. The courts had regard to the basic rules of a contract of indemnity and … Continue reading

Pending Covid-19 cases (UK)

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in General
There are still a number of pending Covid-19 policy interpretation cases being dealt with by the courts in England in the coming months. Stonegate v MS Amlin, Various eateries v Allianz and Gregg’s v Zurich all grapple with the issue of aggregation. Stonegate and the other claimants for example argue that their business interruption insuring … Continue reading

Blog: Covid-19 Vaccine injury no-fault compensation scheme

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in General, Healthcare
This no-fault compensation scheme previously discussed here, has now amended regulations and directions published on the 4th April 2022, available here. The purpose of the Scheme is to provide expeditious and easy access to compensation for persons who suffer from a Covid-19 Vaccine Injury caused by the administration of an improved Covid-19 vaccine. Injuries covered … Continue reading

CCMA: unvaccinated employee’s dismissal fair

Financial Institutions Legal SnapshotBy Michael Balie on Posted in General
On 11 June 2021, South Africa’s landscape regarding mandatory vaccination in the workplace changed with the publishing of the Consolidated Directions on Occupational Health and Safety in certain workplaces (the Directive). This Directive led to wide debate on an employer’s ability to mandate employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. Employers potentially face reputational and financial … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption insurance claims and closure orders by Civil Authorities (USA) Part 4

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
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, on and around … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption insurance claims and absence of a virus exclusion (USA) Part 3

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
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” was included … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption insurance claims and suspension due to direct physical loss (USA) Part 2

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
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 … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption insurance claims and direct physical damage (USA) Part 1

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
In this Court of Appeal Judgement in the State of California, the Californian appeal court dealt authoratively with the question of whether a commercial property insurance policy provides coverage for a business’s lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The court pointed out that while at that time no California appellate court had addressed the issue … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption claims and rental remission

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
This recent Cape High court judgment contains some useful guidance for insurers in adjusting covid-19 business interruption claims involving recovery or remission of rental. The court confirmed that as a matter of general principle: a lessee is entitled to claim rental remission where there is a deprivation of or lack of beneficial use of occupation … Continue reading

US jury rejects restaurant Covid-19 insurance claim

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
Readers who have been following the Covid-19 business interruption litigation in the USA will know that the courts have largely, at summary judgment stage, dismissed claims for coverage alleging that the virus caused physical damage to insured premises. That question has been now been pronounced upon by a jury trial. A Missouri Federal jury considered … Continue reading

Indemnity Insurance involves payment for loss actually suffered by insured (Australian court)

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
In the judgment, Swiss Re International Se v LCA Marrickville (Pty) Limited, the court discussed the principle that an insured must, under a contract of indemnity, prove the extent or the amount of the loss claimed because the indemnity only concerns actual loss and the deductions to be made from the losses. The court confirmed … Continue reading

Covid-19 business interruption Australian judgment mostly favours insurers

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
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 … Continue reading

Extended business cover confined to physical not financial loss by government Covid-19 action (Aus)

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
In this August 2021 judgment, the Federal Court of Australia in Star Entertainment Group Limited v Chubb Insurance Australia Limited [2021] FCA 907 had to deal with the interpretation of an insurance policy of the insureds who owned and operated various casinos and associated businesses.  The insureds allege that the government’s directions in connection with … Continue reading

COVID-19 Vaccines: A step towards mandatory vaccination in the workplace

Photo of Danielle Ebrahim-NaseemBy Danielle Ebrahim-Naseem on Posted in General
Whilst Government had initially taken the view that vaccinations against COVID-19 would not be made mandatory, the revised Consolidated Directions on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in certain workplaces (the Directions), promulgated by the Minister of Employment and Labour, on 11 June 2021, reflect a significant change of approach. In particular the Directions now implicitly permit, … Continue reading

Covid-19 insurance claims and physical loss (US)

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
Another American court in G & A Family Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Smokin’ Pig BBQ & Others v American Family Insurance Company 1: 20-CV-03912-JPB has held that State-imposed Covid-19 restrictions do not qualify as a “direct physical loss” under the insurance policy held by the insureds. The court held that while the phrase “direct physical loss” … Continue reading

Merger ends due to failure to operate in the ordinary course, but COVID-19 not MAE (US)

Photo of Patrick Bracher (ZA)By Patrick Bracher (ZA) on Posted in General
In December 2020 the Delaware court held that the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause a Material Adverse Effect on the target of a merger because the MAE excluded ‘natural disasters and calamities’. Despite this, the buyer was not obliged to close the transaction and was entitled to terminate the sale agreement because the target made … Continue reading

Can South African employers require their employees to undergo mandatory vaccination and testing for COVID-19?

Photo of Jason WhyteBy Jason Whyte on Posted in General
Global efforts have successfully developed both expedited means of testing for the COVID-19 virus and, more recently, vaccines. Employers may thus wish to explore the introduction of workplace policies which formalise mandatory testing and vaccination protocols in order to restore their workplaces to some level of normality, particularly workplaces where remote working is not suitable. … Continue reading

COVID-19 infectious disease extensions and the FCA test case

Photo of Donald DinnieBy Donald Dinnie on Posted in Insurance
The English high court, in a test case between the Financial Conduct Authority and Arch Insurance (UK) Limited and a number of other insurers, engaged in a nuanced analysis of their different policy wordings relating to business interruption cover for COVID-19 related losses. The court largely sought to resolve causation issues by interpreting each policy. … Continue reading
LexBlog