The devil in the detail of business interruption insurance
TheHigh Court has given its view in FCA v Arch Insurance on a small proportionof all the wordings in business interruption policies – but years of wranglingover Covid-19-related claims could lie ahead. Adam Samuel dissects thejudgment and suggests ways forward.
Adam SamuelBALLM DipPFS MCISI FCIArb Certs CII (MP&ER) Barrister and Attorney may becontacted [email protected] links to where you can buy thesecond edition of ‘Consumer Financial Services Complaints and Compensation’,see www.adamsamuel.com/book.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s ongoingnightmare with business interruption insurance, reflected in the High Court’s15 September
decision on its test case, has its origins in a Financial ServicesAuthority bungle in light of the Twin Towers plane crashes
of 9/11. After theWorld Trade Centre was destroyed, nobody knew whether one of the towers wasinsured at all, let alone the
scope of the coverage involved. It took a lawsuitto resolve. The FSA, which oversaw the defendant insurers, started its ‘contractcertainty’
initiative in order to prevent a repetition. Unfortunately, itannounced that contract certainty did not involve insurance
policies actuallybeing comprehensible to those being insured.