London International Exhibition Centre PLC v Allianz Insurance PLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 (06 September 2024)

London International Exhibition Centre PLC v Allianz Insurance PLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 (06 September 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court's reasoning in FCA v Arch regarding causation for radius clauses applies equally to 'at the premises' and hybrid disease clauses. It is sufficient for policyholders to prove that the closure or restriction was imposed in response to cases of COVID-19 which included at least one at the insured premises, regardless of whether the authority knew of or acted upon the specific occurrence at the premises. The 'but for' or 'distinct cause' tests advanced by insurers were rejected. The presence of COVID-19 at the premises, as part of the national outbreak prompting closure, satisfies the causal requirement for cover under these clauses.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1026
Parties
Respondent/claimant: London International Exhibition Centre PLC; Appellant/defendant: Allianz Insurance PLC; Appellant/defendant: Aviva Insurance Limited; Appellant/defendant: Zurich Insurance Company Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Chubb European Group SE; Respondent/claimant: Hairlab Limited; Respondent/claimant: Muscleworks Limited; Respondent/claimant: Bodylines Fitness Limited; Appellant/defendant: Ageas Insurance Limited; Respondent/claimant: Mayfair Banqueting Limited; Appellant/defendant: AXA Insurance UK PLC; Respondent/claimant: Kaizen Cuisine Ltd (t/a Kaizen Cuisine); Respondent/claimant: My Time Fine Fair Ltd (t/a My Time); Respondent/claimant: Umberto's Restaurant Ltd (t/a Umbertos); Appellant/defendant: HDI Global SE-UK Branch; Respondent/claimant: Why Not Bar and Lounge Limited; Appellant/defendant: West Bay Insurance PLC (formerly Zenith Insurance PLC); Appellant/defendant: QIC Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; judgment for policyholders on causation and related preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Business Interruption Insurance, Causation, COVID 19 Pandemic, Policy Interpretation, Notifiable Disease Clauses
Insurance Law Contract Law Business Interruption Insurance Causation COVID 19 Pandemic Policy Interpretation Notifiable Disease Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London International Exhibition Centre PLC

Respondent/claimant

Allianz Insurance PLC

Appellant/defendant

Aviva Insurance Limited

Appellant/defendant

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Chubb European Group SE

Appellant/defendant

Hairlab Limited

Respondent/claimant

Muscleworks Limited

Respondent/claimant

Bodylines Fitness Limited

Respondent/claimant

Ageas Insurance Limited

Appellant/defendant

Mayfair Banqueting Limited

Respondent/claimant

AXA Insurance UK PLC

Appellant/defendant

Kaizen Cuisine Ltd (t/a Kaizen Cuisine)

Respondent/claimant

My Time Fine Fair Ltd (t/a My Time)

Respondent/claimant

Umberto's Restaurant Ltd (t/a Umbertos)

Respondent/claimant

HDI Global SE-UK Branch

Appellant/defendant

Why Not Bar and Lounge Limited

Respondent/claimant

West Bay Insurance PLC (formerly Zenith Insurance PLC)

Appellant/defendant

QIC Europe Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the required causal link between the occurrence of COVID-19 at the insured premises and business interruption losses under 'at the premises' and hybrid disease clauses?
  2. 2 Does the Supreme Court's reasoning in FCA v Arch regarding radius clauses apply to 'at the premises' clauses?
  3. 3 Is it necessary for the occurrence of disease at the premises to be known to or acted upon by the relevant authority?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court's reasoning in FCA v Arch regarding causation for radius clauses applies equally to 'at the premises' and hybrid disease clauses. It is sufficient for policyholders to prove that the closure or restriction was imposed in response to cases of COVID-19 which included at least one at the insured premises, regardless of whether the authority knew of or acted upon the specific occurrence at the premises. The 'but for' or 'distinct cause' tests advanced by insurers were rejected. The presence of COVID-19 at the premises, as part of the national outbreak prompting closure, satisfies the causal requirement for cover under these clauses.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; judgment for policyholders on causation and related preliminary issues.

Orders

  • Insurers' appeals on causation and knowledge requirements dismissed.
  • Policyholders entitled to business interruption cover under 'at the premises' and hybrid disease clauses, subject to other policy terms.