Skip to content

Business interruption and COVID-19: A UK perspective

Daniel MacKenzie and James Galsworthy

On January 15, 2021, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court (“Court”) issued a decision which is likely to be viewed as good news for policy holders who have endured business interruption losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to the widening denial of business interruption claims under the standard wording of insurance policies, the Financial Conduct Authority, the regulator of various UK insurers, advanced a test case with the aim of providing interpretive guidance from the courts to the insurance market for the interpretation of certain standard clauses in insurance contracts.

While not binding in Canada, the analysis undertaken by the UK Supreme Court in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others, [2021] UKSC 1 will be informative to Canadian decision makers where litigation ensues following the denial of coverage in relation to the following types of clauses:

  1. Disease clauses: Clauses which, in general, provide for cover for business interruption losses resulting from the occurrence of a notifiable disease, such as COVID-19, at or within a specified distance of the business premises;
  2. Prevention of access clauses: Clauses which, in general, provide for cover of business interruption losses resulting from public authority intervention preventing or hindering access to, or use of, the business premises;
  3. Hybrid clauses: Clauses which combine main elements of the disease and prevention of access clauses; and
  4. Trends clauses: Clauses which, in general, provide for business interruption loss to be quantified by reference to what the performance of the business would have been had the insured peril not occurred.

Further widening the decision of the High Court, the Court expanded the notion that “restrictions imposed” to prevent access must be undertaken by “force of law.” Additionally, the interpretation of an “inability to use” one’s premises as a result of the restrictions imposed was also widened, such that it is not required that the whole of the premises be unusable for any business purpose. For example, a restaurant may only be able to offer takeout service, while still being covered for losses stemming from its inability to use its premises for the dine-in aspect of its business as a result of COVID-19.

The analysis undertaken by the UK Supreme Court will be informative though non-binding to judicial decision makers in Canada where litigation ensues with regard to these types of clauses, which are also frequently found in the Canadian insurance market.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Generic filters

 
 

Immigration options for entrepreneurs in Canada

April 26, 2021

Brendan Sheridan As Canada begins its economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration is playing an important role. While much of the focus has been on increasing the skilled workforce to fill gaps in the…

Read More

Upcoming regulatory initiatives from the Federal Labour Program

April 19, 2021

Brian Johnston, QC, Killian McParland and Bhreagh Ross On April 6, 2021, Stewart McKelvey was advised by the Federal Labour Program that the Labour Program’s Forward Regulatory Plan 2021–23 (“Plan”) is now available and includes details and timing on 21…

Read More

COVID-19 vaccination leave for employees

April 15, 2021

Mark Tector and Bhreagh Ross With vaccine rollout well underway across the country, employers should be aware of legislative changes that entitle employees to paid or unpaid time-off to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Here are…

Read More

The “dominant tide” comes in: cooperative federalism in the Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

April 5, 2021

Jennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross   In the recent Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“GGPPA Reference”), the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that climate change is real and dangerous.…

Read More

Beyond the border: Immigration update – March 2021

March 30, 2021

We are pleased to present the fifth installment of Beyond the border, a publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers of…

Read More

COVID-19 immigration update

March 30, 2021

*Last updated: March 30, 2021 (Originally published April 1, 2020) Kathleen Leighton Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there are various implications for the immigration world, including for those already in Canada, as well as those…

Read More

“Worker” vs “independent operators” distinction clarified in Newfoundland and Labrador workers’ compensation decision

March 26, 2021

Richard Jordan Is a worker under a contract “of” service or contract “for” service? The former means a worker is an employee whereas the latter means a worker is an independent contractor. The answer to…

Read More

Canadian carbon tax is here to stay: Supreme Court rules Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act constitutional

March 25, 2021

Kevin Landry and William Wojcik In September 2020 the Supreme Court of Canada heard Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, a case featuring appeals from Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta with respect to…

Read More

Changes to the regulation of syndicated mortgages under securities laws

March 25, 2021

Christopher Marr, TEP and David Slipp Effective March 1, 2021 in all provinces of Canada, other than Ontario and Quebec (to be effective there on July 1, 2021), securities laws related to the distribution of…

Read More

Health Canada provides draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes

March 17, 2021

Kevin Landry and  Emily Murray On March 8, 2021, Health Canada released draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes (“Guidance Document”).  At present, the Guidance Document is being circulated for public comment for…

Read More

Search Archive


Generic filters

Scroll To Top