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

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:


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

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