Add news
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010June 2010July 2010
August 2010
September 2010October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011March 2011April 2011May 2011June 2011July 2011August 2011September 2011October 2011November 2011December 2011January 2012February 2012March 2012April 2012May 2012June 2012July 2012August 2012September 2012October 2012November 2012December 2012January 2013February 2013March 2013April 2013May 2013June 2013July 2013August 2013September 2013October 2013November 2013December 2013January 2014February 2014March 2014April 2014May 2014June 2014July 2014August 2014September 2014October 2014November 2014December 2014January 2015February 2015March 2015April 2015May 2015June 2015July 2015August 2015September 2015October 2015November 2015December 2015January 2016February 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017June 2017July 2017August 2017September 2017October 2017November 2017December 2017January 2018February 2018March 2018April 2018May 2018June 2018July 2018August 2018September 2018October 2018November 2018December 2018January 2019February 2019March 2019April 2019May 2019June 2019July 2019August 2019September 2019October 2019November 2019December 2019January 2020February 2020March 2020April 2020May 2020June 2020July 2020August 2020September 2020October 2020November 2020
News Every Day |

Insurers seek to escape billions in COVID-19 payments

Insurers are trying to escape billions in liability for pandemic-related business losses with counter-intuitive arguments that go against the essential purpose of insurance, Britain’s markets watchdog told the UK Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A lawyer for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which brought a test case against insurers on behalf of policyholders, said insurers had reached an “extraordinary conclusion” that business losses were largely uncovered during the coronavirus pandemic because of the widespread havoc it has caused.

“(Insurers) are saying: ‘We insure perils but not ones that are going to cost us a huge amount of money. We never contemplated that’. Well, that isn’t an answer,” Colin Edelman, the FCA’s lawyer, told the second day of a four-day appeal, watched by thousands of businesses brought to their knees during the pandemic.

Small businesses from holiday cottage firms to restaurants and night clubs had to shut down or restrict trading after government-ordered lockdowns and say they face ruin after insurers rejected claims for business interruption cover.

The case revolves around whether 21 policy wordings, affecting potentially 700 types of policies, 60 insurers, 370,000 policyholders and billions of pounds in claims, should cover disruption caused by responses to the virus.

The wordings cover business interruption when insured premises cannot be accessed because of public authority restrictions, in the event of a notifiable disease within a specified radius and hybrid wordings.

Tuesday’s hearing focused on how insurance law clauses, such as a so-called “but for” test, disease, composite peril, prevention of access and trends, should be applied in the case.

A lower court in September found largely in favour of the FCA and the Hiscox Action Group, a policyholder action group that represents hundreds of policyholders that has joined the lawsuit, when judges ruled some insurers were wrong to reject claims.

But the FCA, the action group and six insurers — Arch ACGL.O, Argenta HNRGn.DE, Hiscox HSX.L, MS Amlin, RSA RSA.L and QBE QBE.AX — are all challenging elements of the ruling they lost.

Insurers, which have said they are paying valid claims, argue that most disease or “prevention of access” clauses in insurance policies do not cover the pandemic and that any pay-outs should reflect the wider economic downturn caused by coronavirus.

 

“An expansionist approach to the construction of insurance clauses is not an appropriate or principled solution,” John Lockey, a lawyer representing Arch, told the hearing.

Jonathan Gaisman, a lawyer for Hiscox, said prevention of access clauses were designed only for closure by a public authority in situations specific to a business premises, such as the presence of rats or mice, food poisoning or drainage problems, as well as certain diseases.

“Lockdown in the case of a worldwide pandemic is totally different,” he said.




Read also

Will Patriots Re-Sign Cam Newton? Execs, Coaches Reportedly ‘Skeptical’

Arsenal hope Dani Ceballos success will allow them to sign Real Madrid star on loan in January

Tier 2 pub rules: Drinkers MUST leave after finishing meals & can’t stay for another round, No10 confirms



News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro




Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here