This UK Supreme Court judgment https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0100-judgment.pdf has implications on the recoverability of economic loss resulting from physical damage to property. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of three lower courts through which the claim had meandered.
The claim arose from a road traffic collision in which the hired car was damaged through the
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
Prescription arose in a UK case dealing with a business interruption claim arising from damage to the insured’s gym facilities when the premises were broken into and vandalised. Damage was caused to the toilets and wash hand basin and there was flooding of the premises. Exercise bikes, furniture, mirrors and other equipment were damaged and
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
The Illinois District Court rejected a liability claim by a nightclub against the insurer arising from a personal injury suit resulting from a shooting because of an assault exception. The exception excluded any claim “arising out of, related to, or, in any way involving any actual or alleged assault, battery, harmful or offensive contact, or
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”