Bellini (N/E) Ltd v Brit UW Limited

Bellini (N/E) Ltd v Brit UW Limited

Clause 8.2.6 of the policy does not provide cover for business interruption in the absence of physical damage as defined in the policy. The references to 'damage' are not a drafting mistake and must be given their natural meaning. The policy, read as a whole, only extends business interruption cover where there is physical damage, and there is no basis to rewrite the clause to provide non-damage cover.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Bellini (N/E) Ltd trading as Bellini; Defendant/respondent: Brit UW Limited (the corporate capital provider of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2987 for the 2019 year of account)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts, Business Interruption Insurance, COVID 19 Related Claims, Policy Construction, Non Damage Business Interruption Cover
Insurance Law Contract Law Interpretation of Insurance Contracts Business Interruption Insurance COVID 19 Related Claims Policy Construction Non Damage Business Interruption Cover

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bellini (N/E) Ltd trading as Bellini

Claimant/appellant

Brit UW Limited (the corporate capital provider of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2987 for the 2019 year of account)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 8.2.6 of the policy provides cover for business interruption in the absence of physical damage as defined in the policy
  2. 2 Whether the references to 'damage' in clause 8.2.6 can be disregarded or construed as a mistake

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 8.2.6 of the policy does not provide cover for business interruption in the absence of physical damage as defined in the policy. The references to 'damage' are not a drafting mistake and must be given their natural meaning. The policy, read as a whole, only extends business interruption cover where there is physical damage, and there is no basis to rewrite the clause to provide non-damage cover.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed