London International Exhibition Centre Plc v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1481 (Comm)
London International Exhibition Centre Plc v Allianz Insurance PLC & Ors
6 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1026
Court of Appeal
Businesses sued their insurers for Covid-19 losses, claiming their policies should cover it. The court decided that even though the government's response wasn't directly caused by the virus at each specific business, it was *one* cause among many, and the policies should pay out.
Key Facts
- •Six expedited test cases concerning business interruption (BI) losses due to Covid-19 were appealed.
- •Policies covered BI losses from disease occurring 'at the premises'.
- •The Supreme Court's decision in FCA v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 1 was relevant.
- •The appeals concerned causation, notifiability, the role of the Medical Officer of Health, and policy wording interpretation.
- •The claimants included ExCeL London and several small businesses.
- •The insurers argued for a 'but for' or 'distinct cause' test for causation, while the policyholders argued for a concurrent causation approach.
Legal Principles
Contractual interpretation requires an objective approach, considering what a reasonable person would understand.
FCA v Arch
The required causal link depends on the policy's interpretation; the 'proximate cause' test can be displaced.
FCA v Arch
A loss can have multiple equally effective causes; cover is generally available if one cause is an insured peril (unless expressly excluded).
FCA v Arch, Miss Jay Jay
The 'but for' test isn't always necessary; multiple events can combine to cause a loss, even if individually insufficient.
FCA v Arch
'At the premises' clauses differ from radius clauses, but the differences may not affect the causation test.
This case
Outcomes
Appeals and cross-appeals dismissed.
The government's actions were caused by occurrences of Covid-19 at the premises, in combination with all other cases. A concurrent causation approach was appropriate, given the nature of notifiable diseases and the government's response.
Medical Officer of Health includes national-level medical officers.
The term 'Public Authority' is broad and includes national government; 'Medical Officer of Health' lacks a defined meaning and encompasses those with relevant medical expertise at a national level.
Disease only needs to be notifiable at the time of occurrence at the premises.
The insured peril requires a notifiable disease to occur at the premises; a later designation as notifiable doesn't retroactively qualify earlier occurrences.
Knowledge of disease occurrence by the Medical Officer of Health is not required.
Policy wording doesn't mandate this; concurrent causation analysis makes such knowledge unnecessary.
'Suffered' in the Mayfair clause means 'occurred or sustained,' not just 'manifested'.
The word 'suffered' does not necessarily imply symptoms; limiting the clause to visitors or employees does not materially affect the causation analysis.
Similar Cases
Gatwick Investment Limited & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE
[2024] EWHC 124 (Comm)
International Entertainment Holdings Limited & Ors v Allianz Insurance PLC
[2024] EWCA Civ 1281
Unipolsai Assicurazioni SpA v Covea Insurance PLC
[2024] EWHC 253 (Comm)
Oaxaca Limited t/a Wahaca v QIC Europe Limited
[2024] EWHC 394 (Comm)