• news-banner

    Expert Insights

COVID-19 and Business Interruption Insurance

On 5 March 2020, England declared COVID-19 a notifiable disease.  A spokesperson for the

Department of Health and Social Care said:

“This will help companies seek compensation through their insurance policies in the event of any cancellations they may have to make as a result of the spread of the virus.”

Business Interruption (‘BI’) policies could now offer a potential lifeline to businesses to claim losses flowing from COVID-19. This note explores whether typical BI policies will respond.

The nature of the policy

The critical question will concern the nature of the BI policy. The key is likely to be whether cover is limited to physical damage to property or whether cover is broader.

A Property Damage Policy

The reason many BI policies will not cover losses caused by anything other than physical damage is because BI policies are ordinarily purchased as extensions to property damage (‘PD’) policies. Cover under the BI policy is frequently tied to the cover provided under the PD policy by a ‘material damage proviso’.

Insurers will argue that COVID-19 does not harm property, and therefore that BI policies linked to physical property are unlikely to respond to the vast majority of revenue losses. That said, potential claimants may have valid counter-arguments to this line of reasoning. For example, many business premises have been forced to close in order for deep cleans to be undertaken following an employee becoming infected with, or suffering the symptoms of COVID-19. Closure has caused loss of revenue.

Whilst generally, to constitute physical damage, there has to be a physical change in the property, there have been successful arguments that property contaminated or overlaid by a dangerous substance has been damaged. Applying this to COVID-19, there is an argument that when premises are contaminated as above, the ‘material damage proviso’ is satisfied.

Policies Not Contingent On Property Damage

Insurance Policies which do not require property damage might also respond to COVID-19. The most common example is pure business interruption policies. Typically, these policies respond when certain specific circumstances are met. For example, coverage might be triggered where the insured is denied access to its premises because of a government order or because of the occurrence of a notifiable disease within a certain radius of the insured’s premises.  

The application of such triggers will not necessarily be straightforward and careful analysis is necessary. For example, some policies provide an exhaustive definition of notifiable diseases whilst others only provide non-exhaustive examples of relevant diseases. Each type of policy will be interpreted individually. Where non-exhaustive examples of relevant diseases are provided, arguments can be raised by policyholders that COVID-19 can be implied into the list given that it is a "notifiable disease". Where an exhaustive list of notifiable diseases includes SARS, policyholders may also be able to argue that SARS and COVID-19 are such close relatives that coverage for SARS extends to COVID-19. 

Conclusion

There can be no doubt that COVID-19 will have an unprecedented impact upon businesses and insurers. The impact may however not fall evenly. Businesses with identical cover may find that their policies respond differently, depending on precisely how their business interruption arises. Likewise, two businesses that suffer precisely the same interruption will find that cover varies depending upon what they have agreed with their insurers. There are also likely to be issues as to the period of indemnity (if any) and when it concludes. Each case will of course depend on the facts and on the terms agreed.

Policies often contain detailed provisions as to how losses are to be calculated or as to the supporting documents required. Even if such provisions are not expressly provided for within the policy, any insured should consider what evidence they have available to demonstrate the losses sustained and take steps to preserve that evidence very carefully.

Our thinking

  • Women in Leadership: Resilience in Entrepreneurship

    Events

  • UK Home Office made £329 million profit from Skilled Worker visas in a year but will not replace the Sponsor Management System until late 2028

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • New EU regulations for importing cultural property into the EU – what art collectors need to know

    Suzanne Marriott

    Quick Reads

  • Adjudicators can hear legacy building safety defect claims: BDW Trading Limited v Ardmore Construction Limited [2024] EWHC 3235

    Melanie Tomlin

    Insights

  • Client Conversations Podcast: Giles Pocock

    Simon Ridpath

    Podcasts

  • The first case on Information Orders in connection with Building Liability Orders: BDW Trading Limited v. Ardmore Construction Limited & Ors

    Ogooluwa Esther Michael-John

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys ‘Client Conversations’ features Giles Pocock – VP of Brand and Marketing at Bowers & Wilkins

    Simon Ridpath

    Podcasts

  • Double trouble: the Finance Act 2025 relief for re-remittances

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Guide to launching online consumer brands in the UK – 10 essential steps

    Rebecca Steer

    Insights

  • Structuring the bank of mum and dad

    William Marriott

    Insights

  • Sarah Higgins, Sarah Jane Boon, Miranda Fisher and Charlotte Posnansky write for Family Law Journal on how the 2024 budget is impacting family law

    Sarah Higgins

    In the Press

  • Overview of the DIFC Courts Law 2025

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • DIFC Court – A New Vision - Insights from the BarMENA discussion with the Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts H.E. Wayne Martin

    Abdul Azeem Abdul Samad

    Quick Reads

  • eprivateclient quotes Nicola Saccardo and Daniele Mologni on why Italy is an increasingly popular destination for high-net-worth individuals looking to relocate

    Nicola Saccardo

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys is shortlisted in six categories in the Law.com International European Legal Innovation & Tech Awards 2025

    News

  • Sarah Wray writes for Professional Adviser on the inheritance tax consultation on agricultural and business property relief

    Sarah Wray

    In the Press

  • Carris Peacey and Sylwia Jatczak write for R3 RECOVERY Magazine on the Building Safety Act 2022 and the obligations on IPs

    Carris Peacey

    In the Press

  • The EU Omnibus: resetting the rules on sustainability reporting

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • The Lawyer covers our Russell Up scheme and the number of trainee innovation projects it is delivering

    Joe Cohen

    In the Press

  • Insights for companies from recent ISSB publications on materiality and voluntary application of the ISSB Standards

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

Back to top