BI claim refused? We can help

Insurers have claimed when repudiating claims that the cover is not intended for an outbreak of this disease on a national basis. They say they expected the cover to apply only to small scale local events. They rely on words such as ‘an occurrence’, to indicate it must be a single instance of disease or death. They claim that although the proximity to the insured premises may be between one and 25 miles the outbreak must ‘directly affect’ the insured business or ‘solely and directly’ cause the loss.

Excuses for non-payment

They say that it is the government’s decision to deal with a multitude of disease events that has led to the lockdown and not specifically to the outbreak within the radius from the insured premises. In other words the cause of the lockdown was not specifically the discovery of an outbreak of a notifiable disease within the specified radius but many outbreaks across the country some of which may coincidentally have occurred within the radius specified. They do not deny that some of these may have been within the specific radius but claim the quantity is so great elsewhere that this has led to the government’s decision. This is why they claim it is not within the spirit of the policy wording. We expect you will have received letters or emails of repudiation in this vein.

Our response - why they should pay

We do not agree with this refusal to indemnify. We believe there is a clear chain of causation from the outbreak occurring, the government firstly taking action to advise against trading and then formally forbidding trading from the insured premises when the number of events increased. We do not see the intervention of the government with the extreme measures they have taken as being a break in the chain.  We see nothing in the policy that supports the insurer’s contention that a national outbreak of a notifiable disease is different in scope from a localised one sufficient to make it an alternative distinguishable cause. The policies contain nothing excluding a national epidemic or pandemic affecting many thousands of people across the entire country. Insurers had the ability to include such a clause in their policies, but they have chosen not to do so.

We will check your policy wording

If you agree with us and wish to join an action group that represents those who share your policy wording please contact us on – info@claimsec.co.uk. Please send a copy of your schedule and if possible your policy wording with your email.

We are particularly interested in hearing from you if your policy is with any of these insurers where we already have a number of interested policyholders.

• Eaton Gate

• Thames Underwriting

• CFC

• R & Q

• MS Amlin

• Q Underwriting/Thistle

• New India

The action contemplated is with the assistance of Edwin Coe LLP, a leading firm of solicitors who are already appointed and leading the action against Hiscox.