The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd's for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account v Pro 2 Care Limited

The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd's for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account v Pro 2 Care Limited

The policy did not afford Business Interruption cover to Pro 2 Care as no relevant sums insured, maximum indemnity period, or gross revenue were stated in the schedule; the business was not operational at the property at the time of damage, so no insurable interest or causative loss existed. Waiver was not established as Probitas only agreed to reconsider the claim, not accept liability. The section 13A counterclaim for unreasonable delay is arguable and should proceed to trial.

Parties
Claimant: The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd’s for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account (Trading as Probitas Syndicate 1492); Defendant: Pro 2 Care Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Dispute / Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of Probitas for declaration; Pro 2 Care’s counterclaim for declaration dismissed; section 13A counterclaim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Business Interruption Cover, Policy Interpretation, Implied Terms, Waiver, Delay in Start Up, Section 13 a Insurance Act 2015
Insurance Law Contract Law Business Interruption Cover Policy Interpretation Implied Terms Waiver Delay in Start Up Section 13 a Insurance Act 2015

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd’s for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account (Trading as Probitas Syndicate 1492)

Claimant

Pro 2 Care Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Dispute / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurance policy afforded Business Interruption cover to Pro 2 Care
  2. 2 Whether Pro 2 Care had an insurable interest in respect of Business Interruption losses
  3. 3 Whether Probitas waived its right to deny Business Interruption cover

Ratio Decidendi

The policy did not afford Business Interruption cover to Pro 2 Care as no relevant sums insured, maximum indemnity period, or gross revenue were stated in the schedule; the business was not operational at the property at the time of damage, so no insurable interest or causative loss existed. Waiver was not established as Probitas only agreed to reconsider the claim, not accept liability. The section 13A counterclaim for unreasonable delay is arguable and should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of Probitas for declaration; Pro 2 Care’s counterclaim for declaration dismissed; section 13A counterclaim to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Declaration that Pro 2 Care has no basis under the policy for Business Interruption cover and no cause of action for refusal to pay alleged business interruption losses.
  • Counterclaim for declaration dismissed.