判决理由
Business interruption insurance policies that cover losses arising from notifiable diseases or government-mandated closures may cover losses caused by COVID-19, depending on the policy wording. The 'but for' test of causation is not appropriate for disease clause policies.
事实
The FCA brought a test case on behalf of policyholders to determine whether various types of business interruption insurance policies covered losses from COVID-19 and associated lockdowns.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court largely upheld the FCA's arguments, finding that many policy wordings did cover COVID-19 losses. Disease clauses did not require the policyholder to show that the particular case of disease in the relevant area was the proximate cause of the business interruption.
关键引述
"Each case of COVID-19 that had occurred by the date of any government measure was a separate and equally effective cause of that measure."
— Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt
后续处理
The definitive case on COVID-19 business interruption insurance in the UK.