The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd's for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account v Pro 2 Care Ltd [2025] EWHC 1921 (Comm) (25 July 2025)

The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd's for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account v Pro 2 Care Ltd [2025] EWHC 1921 (Comm) (25 July 2025)

The policy, when read as a whole by a reasonable policyholder, did not afford business interruption cover to the defendant. The schedule and schedule of values made clear that no sum was insured for business interruption, and the operative cover was limited to property damage. The defendant had no insurable interest in business interruption losses as no business was being carried out at the property prior to the damage. The counterclaim for damages under section 13A of the Insurance Act 2015 raised issues of fact unsuitable for summary determination and should proceed to trial.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1921 (Comm)
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 Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part for claimant; counterclaim for damages to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Business Interruption Insurance, Policy Interpretation, Delay in Start Up Cover, Section 13 a Insurance Act 2015, Declaratory Relief, Summary Judgment
Insurance Law Contract Law Commercial Law Business Interruption Insurance Policy Interpretation Delay in Start Up Cover Section 13 a Insurance Act 2015 Declaratory Relief +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
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 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurance policy afforded business interruption cover to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant had an insurable interest in respect of business interruption losses
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to summary judgment declaring no business interruption cover or liability

Ratio Decidendi

The policy, when read as a whole by a reasonable policyholder, did not afford business interruption cover to the defendant. The schedule and schedule of values made clear that no sum was insured for business interruption, and the operative cover was limited to property damage. The defendant had no insurable interest in business interruption losses as no business was being carried out at the property prior to the damage. The counterclaim for damages under section 13A of the Insurance Act 2015 raised issues of fact unsuitable for summary determination and should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part for claimant; counterclaim for damages to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant has no basis under the policy for business interruption cover or cause of action for refusal to pay such losses.
  • Summary judgment refused on the defendant's counterclaim for damages under section 13A of the Insurance Act 2015; that claim to proceed to trial.