In TKC London Ltd v Allianz Insurance coverage plc [2020] EWHC 2710, the Industrial Courtroom thought of the abstract dismissal of TKC London Ltd’s declare in opposition to its insurer, Allianz Insurance coverage plc, regarding sure enterprise interruption losses that arose due the closure of its enterprise in compliance with COVID-19 associated governmental measures.
TKC operates the The Kensington Crêperie in London; and, from 21 March 2020, it was required by the Well being Safety (Coronavirus, Enterprise Closure) (England) Regulation 2020 to shut and stop any sale of foods and drinks that was to be consumed on the premises. Following the necessities of the rules, TKC closed The Kensington Crêperie from 21 March to 4 July 2020. The compelled closure resulted in vital losses for TKC.
TKC was insured all through the related interval by Allianz beneath a coverage that included, amongst different issues, a “Enterprise Interruption” part. TKC asserted that the “Enterprise Interruption” part of its coverage operated to cowl it for the losses that it had sustained on account of being compelled to shut The Kensington Crêperie; and, with Allianz refuting their interpretation of the coverage, TKC introduced an motion in opposition to Allianz. Allianz responded with an software for abstract judgment of TKC’s declare on the premise that TKC’s interpretation of the coverage was misconceived and certain to fail.
The related coverage wording was as follows. The Enterprise Interruption part supplied cowl for “Enterprise Interruption by any Occasion”. Enterprise Interruption was outlined as:
“Loss ensuing from interruption or interference with the enterprise carried on by the Insured on the Premises in consequence of an occasion to property utilized by the Insured.”
Occasion was outlined as:
“Unintended loss or destruction of or injury to property utilized by the Insured on the Premises for the aim of the Enterprise.”
TKC superior the argument that the unexpected closure of their enterprise may very well be labeled as an Occasion, as outlined within the coverage. This was superior on the premise that “unintended” needs to be taken to imply little greater than one thing which was “unlooked for or unintended”, and that “lack of property” included a brief lack of use of that property. Allianz refuted these submissions. It submitted that unintended loss may refer solely, within the context, to a bodily lack of property and {that a} mere non permanent dispossession didn’t meet this definition. In assist of their interpretation of “loss”, Allianz additionally referred to the traditional reasoning of Sir Martin Nourse in Tektrol Ltd v Worldwide Ins Co of Hanover Ltd1
“Loss” is a phrase whose that means varies broadly with the context wherein it’s used. If a person stated to you: “I’ve misplaced my spouse”, you’ll perceive him to imply one factor exterior the maze at Hampton Courtroom and one other exterior an undertakers within the excessive road.”
The courtroom agreed that the that means of “loss” should be decided by reference to its speedy context, and it present in favour of Allianz by accepting that “loss”, on this specific context, should necessitate some bodily facet to it; and that “loss” couldn’t sensibly be interpreted to incorporate the non permanent lack of use of property. It was on this foundation that the courtroom granted abstract judgment in favour of Allianz.
This matter was recognised by the courtroom as a “footnote” to the bigger FCA Take a look at Case2 surrounding these points – significantly, because it didn’t have to think about any illness clauses or denial of entry extensions within the circumstances.
The judgment confirms the place that typical damage-based enterprise interruption insurance coverage wording will typically not be attentive to “pure” COVID-19 associated losses.
Notes