• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Relief for Private Dental Practices? - Update following the verdict of the FCA’s business interruption insurance test case

We recently wrote about the implication of the Government’s lockdown orders forcing dental practices to shut their doors, with all routine care being suspended nationwide. Our previous article highlighted that new evidence suggested that more than three-quarters of dentist practices will receive no support from the Government’s COVID-19 support schemes. With many dental practices facing an insurer refusing to pay out for business interruptions relating to the global pandemic coupled with being unable to rely on the Government, many were left wondering where to turn next. 

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had previously confirmed that the majority of business interruption policies don't make provisions for disruptions caused by a pandemic, meaning insurers won't pay out to most businesses affected by COVID-19. However, at the time of making the statement, the Financial Conduct Authority were in the process of seeking a Court declaration to clarify which claims should be honoured.

Positive news recently surfaced on 15th September 2020, as the High Court ruled that the majority of businesses who held business interruption insurance and were forced to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic are entitled to be compensated by their insurers and that, subject to the limits of the policy, this compensation should return them to the position they would have been in had the pandemic never happened.

Whilst this is certainly welcome news for all dental practices, the ruling reconfirmed that pay-outs remain subject to the limits of the policy. Like all insurance products, the small print of business interruption policies carries a list of exclusions, with infectious diseases typically being one of them. The FCA’s test case has now provided an element of clarity and certainty for many policy holders, however, whether an insurer is truly capable of denying or limiting a claim will still depend on the specific wording of the business interruption insurance policy.

During the midst of the Government’s lockdown orders, we highlighted the alarming statistic that 70% of practices say that they can only maintain financial viability for a maximum of three months. We have seen a gradual easing of lockdown measures and practices have been able to treat patients again (albeit with many restrictions affecting portability still in place). With the obvious need for urgency, practices will find some comfort in that fact that insurers have been encouraged by the FCA to, irrespective of any appeals process, consider the steps they must now take to progress claims.

To assist with the cash flow difficulties which have arisen, at Charles Russell Speechlys we are now demanding that our clients’ insurance providers make an immediate interim payment whilst full losses are calculated. Whether you’re looking to bring a claim against your insurer or simply seeking clarity as to your position under your insurance policy, our specialist lawyers are able to assist by combining sector-specific knowledge with insurance law and regulatory expertise.

For further information on how we can support you and your business, please contact Helen Wong, Tertius Alberts or your regular contact at Charles Russell Speechlys.

Our thinking

  • Blazing a Trail in Real Estate: Inspiring Female Leaders of the Future

    Georgina Muskett

    Events

  • Unpacking the Horizon IT Scandal: Ethical Decision‑Making in Conversation with Dr Karen Nokes

    Megan Paul

    Events

  • Charles Russell Speechlys hires first IT, Data and AI Partner with leading digital health expertise in Paris

    Marguerite Brac de La Perrière

    News

  • Understanding Vacant Possession: A Key Element in Property Transactions

    Emma Preece

    Insights

  • Year of the Horse Celebration

    Edith Lai

    Events

  • Martyn’s Law: What Historic Houses Need to Know

    Naomi Nettleton

    Insights

  • Chandni Pandya contributes to an Estates Gazette Q&A on the modification of restrictive covenants

    Chandni Pandya

    In the Press

  • Navigating the Employment Rights Act 2025

    Ben Smith

    Events

  • Members of joint ventures cannot unilaterally bring adjudication proceedings on behalf of their joint venture

    Henry Dalton

    Insights

  • Understanding risk-based human rights due diligence

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • Residential PEEPs Breakfast Panel

    Richard Flenley

    Events

  • Commonhold: Best Supporting Tenure or Leading Role?

    Sarah Bradd

    Quick Reads

  • AI and Data Protection

    Victor Mound

    Insights

  • Can you divorce your parents in England and Wales?

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Biodiversity Net Gain: VAT considerations for Land Managers

    Elizabeth Hughes

    Insights

  • Dewdney William Drew comments in Business Green on a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has effectively prohibited Oatly from using the word 'milk' in its marketing

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Construction News quotes Francis Ho on John Lewis shelving its build-to-rent property plans

    Francis Ho

    In the Press

  • Michael Wells-Greco and Hannah Owen write for Today's Family Lawyer on a recent UK Supreme Court case that considers whether an adoption order can be set aside on welfare grounds

    Michael Wells-Greco

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Richard Honey and Charlotte Hill on how the Property (Digital Assets) Act in the UK is impacting private clients

    Charlotte Hill

    In the Press

  • Navigating ESG Regulatory Change in Supply Chain Contracts

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

Back to top