Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes U.K. Judgment on COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Unlikely To Impact U.S. Coverage Disputes
In their Corporate Insurance column, Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes discuss a recent U.K. ruling that policyholders are entitled to coverage for business interruption loss incurred due to shutdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in a test case interpreting the language of 21 different U.K. policy forms issued by eight insurers. They write that while the judgment is certainly a major development with respect to the U.K. claims, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the business interruption coverage disputes pending in the United States.
January 28, 2021 at 12:00 PM
7 minute read
Expert AnalysisOn Jan. 15, 2021, the U.K. Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the Financial Conduct Authority ruling that policyholders are entitled to coverage for business interruption loss incurred due to shutdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in a test case interpreting the language of 21 different U.K. policy forms issued by eight insurers. While this is big news for U.K. policyholders, the judgment is unlikely to have a significant impact on the business interruption coverage disputes pending in the United States. First, the ruling is based on U.K. procedural and substantive law. But perhaps more important, the U.K. Supreme Court did not address the interpretation or application of the direct physical loss or damage requirement that is central to the disputed claims here in the United States. The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch Insurance [2021] UKSC 1 (on appeal from [2020] EWHC 2448).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute read
Deposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Post-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 2After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 3Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
- 4Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
- 5Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
