Search
Close this search box.

U.K. Supreme Court rules insurance policies cover COVID-19 losses

pexels-negative-space-6618

U.K. Supreme Court rules insurance policies cover COVID-19 losses

The ruling comes as another blow to an industry that has endured one of its toughest years ever.

On Nov. 16, 2020, the U.K. business interruption insurance test case appeal began with several major insurance companies claiming to the U.K. Supreme Court that it is inappropriate to assume there could be unlimited coverage during a pandemic. 

(Bloomberg) — Insurers face increased COVID-19 payouts to small businesses that were forced to close during the lockdown, as the U.K.’s top court ruled in favor of policyholders in a dispute over coverage.

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Friday, Jan. 15, that policies sold by six firms, including RSA Insurance Group Plc and Hiscox Ltd., cover losses sustained when businesses were shut down to help slow the spread of the outbreak. The firms had appealed a lower-court decision in September that found some policies in a test case brought by the U.K.’s top markets regulator should payout.

“The judgment should be a massive boost to all businesses reeling from a third lockdown who can now demand their claims are paid,” said Richard Leedham, a partner at Mishcon de Reya who represents the Hiscox Action Group of policyholders. “The hope and expectation of our clients is that the claim adjustment process starts immediately and that insurers will not continue to cause further distress by further unnecessary delay.”

After initially falling, Hiscox shares rose as much as 2.7% in London on Friday morning as the insurer said that additional business interruption losses for 2020 would be limited to $48 million. RSA shares were little changed.

(Bloomberg) — Insurers face increased COVID-19 payouts to small businesses that were forced to close during the lockdown, as the U.K.’s top court ruled in favor of policyholders in a dispute over coverage.

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Friday, Jan. 15, that policies sold by six firms, including RSA Insurance Group Plc and Hiscox Ltd., cover losses sustained when businesses were shut down to help slow the spread of the outbreak. The firms had appealed a lower-court decision in September that found some policies in a test case brought by the U.K.’s top markets regulator should payout.

“The judgment should be a massive boost to all businesses reeling from a third lockdown who can now demand their claims are paid,” said Richard Leedham, a partner at Mishcon de Reya who represents the Hiscox Action Group of policyholders. “The hope and expectation of our clients is that the claim adjustment process starts immediately and that insurers will not continue to cause further distress by further unnecessary delay.”

After initially falling, Hiscox shares rose as much as 2.7% in London on Friday morning as the insurer said that additional business interruption losses for 2020 would be limited to $48 million. RSA shares were little changed.

Hiscox, RSA, Zurich Insurance Group AG, and five other companies were named in the original case, which was brought by the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority in an effort to bring legal clarity to policies held by at least 370,000 clients. Zurich didn’t appeal, saying in September that the initial ruling confirmed that its policies didn’t cover business losses related to the outbreak.

RSA said Friday that it would pay claims related to the Supreme Court ruling as quickly as possible, making interim payments to clients while their full claims are assessed.

The Supreme Court ruling, which can’t be appealed, means that more policyholders will have valid claims, and some payouts will be higher, the FCA said in a statement.

“Tens of thousands of small firms and potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs are relying on this,” Sheldon Mills, executive director for consumers and competition at the FCA, said in the statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote