{"id":17840,"date":"2020-11-16T00:54:14","date_gmt":"2020-11-16T05:54:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/?p=17840"},"modified":"2020-11-16T00:54:14","modified_gmt":"2020-11-16T05:54:14","slug":"covid-insurance-test-case-heads-to-uk-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/2020\/11\/16\/covid-insurance-test-case-heads-to-uk-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Covid insurance test case heads to UK Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

A hotly-contested case about insurance payouts for small businesses who were unable to trade owing to lockdown heads to the Supreme Court on Monday.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A host of businesses closed or faced significant losses, so made claims on their business interruption insurance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

But many insurers disputed the claims, arguing policies were never meant to cover such unprecedented restrictions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Supreme Court judges will make a final judgement after the hearing, which is expected to last four days.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The issue will have had implications for 370,000 – mostly small – businesses, and involves potential payouts of \u00a31.2bn.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

High Court judges earlier found mostly in favour of insurers having to pay out to policyholders regarding a selection of policy types. Some of these decisions are now being appealed against at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

What is the case about?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Many thousands of businesses could not operate during the first national lockdown because, for example, they were unable to enter their premises.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\"Anna<\/span><\/div>
Anna Smart and her husband Robin had to relocate to their back garden (Image: Anna Smart)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

It meant some went out of business. Others – like Anna and Robin Smart’s photography studio in Oxfordshire – had to downsize, make staff redundant, or relocate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Smarts moved their studio into their back garden and said the whole situation caused “immense stress”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

They, like others, looked to their insurer for compensation via their business interruption insurance policies. Some businesses paid premiums of many thousands of pounds a year for such cover.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Some insurers refused to pay out, in some cases because they said disease clauses in contracts did not cover such a scenario.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

What has happened so far?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, brought a test case with eight insurers agreeing to take part in proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

This went to the High Court, where judges found that most, but not all, of the policies involved should pay out offering a potential lifeline to many of these small businesses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

But many have still had to wait while the proceedings were fast-tracked to the highest court in England and Wales – the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

What will the Supreme Court be looking at?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The High Court looked at 21 policy types as part of a test case, and rulings on 13 have been appealed against.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

These will be discussed in complex legal arguments over four days at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n