Jump to content
The Dark Blues

Business Interruption Insurance

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Looks like any appeals will be expedited as well and bypassing Appeal Court straight to Supreme Court then end of. Below is latest from FCA website:

 

 

The judgment will be handed down at 10:30am on Tuesday 15 September 2020. This page will be updated shortly after that.

After judgment, a party may appeal the court’s decision, subject to procedural rules for seeking permission to appeal and making an appeal. If this happens, the parties to the test case have agreed as part of the Framework Agreement that they will seek to have any appeal heard on an expedited basis. This includes exploring the possibility of a ‘leapfrog’ appeal to the Supreme Court (an appeal which would not need to be heard by the Court of Appeal first).

It should be noted that the decision as to whether and where an appeal might take place will be a matter for the court. But the parties’ agreement to seek to expedite any such process is consistent with their mutual objective to achieve the maximum clarity possible for the maximum number of policyholders and their insurers in an expeditious and proportionate way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

To me this like the bookie saying “Nobody expected Leicester City to win the premiership, so we can’t be held liable”. The point of insurance is to safeguard yourself from the unexpected, and often

I'd start by getting them to rewrite their policies to remove all the small-print that is only there as a get out anyway.  The contract is too one-sided IMO.  

Looks like any appeals will be expedited as well and bypassing Appeal Court straight to Supreme Court then end of. Below is latest from FCA website:     The judgment will be handed down

I suppose there could be a few takes on that but I'm taking from it that all sides want to get this 'put to bed' so are willing to 'expedite' it through the courts. One side will be laughing kitbags and the other will be tears and snotters, round one will be Tuesday, guess it will be appealed and hopefully quickly off to the 'big court' for the final decision.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, chomp my root said:

I suppose there could be a few takes on that but I'm taking from it that all sides want to get this 'put to bed' so are willing to 'expedite' it through the courts. One side will be laughing kitbags and the other will be tears and snotters, round one will be Tuesday, guess it will be appealed and hopefully quickly off to the 'big court' for the final decision.

Kinda begs the question why can't they just go to the 'big court' from the off and save a lot of time and money all round?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HK Blues said:

Kinda begs the question why can't they just go to the 'big court' from the off and save a lot of time and money all round?

Procedure I guess. The big court is probably busy with murders an' whatnot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, chomp my root said:

Procedure I guess. The big court is probably busy with murders an' whatnot. 

I'm sure you're right Chomp, just seems like an unnecessary stage given we are certain there will be an appeal anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HK Blues said:

I'm sure you're right Chomp, just seems like an unnecessary stage given we are certain there will be an appeal anyway. 

There maybe has to be the option to appeal, dunno but it is what it is. I just hope the weasling insurance companies take a kick in the spuds, they need much better regulated for pay outs etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chomp my root said:

There maybe has to be the option to appeal, dunno but it is what it is. I just hope the weasling insurance companies take a kick in the spuds, they need much better regulated for pay outs etc.

I'd start by getting them to rewrite their policies to remove all the small-print that is only there as a get out anyway.  The contract is too one-sided IMO.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, HK Blues said:

I'd start by getting them to rewrite their policies to remove all the small-print that is only there as a get out anyway.  The contract is too one-sided IMO. 

Most of the big companies have already rewritten their policies to specifically rule out pandemics or Covid in particular or so I have read. It seems to me that if this was necessary then there was something in the original wording that made them do so e.g. they actually had a liability in the old style policies.

In my eventually successful claim for a holiday cancellation from March I had a conversation (one of many) with the Insurers along the following lines.

Insurance Co Rep. "If your policy was taken out after 13th March 2020 then we have no liability for claims made due to Covid or any other Pandemic. All new policies now specifically exclude such claims".

Me. "If you check your records I took out the (annual cover) policy last October".

Them. "We still deny your claim because no-one expected a Pandemic and we cant be held liable".

So basically "Pi$$ off"; if they felt the need to change the policies to exclude Pandemics then surely the original policies included them. It is only common sense to me. I got a pay out by getting a doctors certificate and months of pestering them but they appeared to still be generally holding onto the 'Pandemics don't count nonsense'. Despite 'winning' in the end my experience makes me uncertain as to whether the Club will be ultimately successful with their claim!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, troodee1893 said:

Most of the big companies have already rewritten their policies to specifically rule out pandemics or Covid in particular or so I have read. It seems to me that if this was necessary then there was something in the original wording that made them do so e.g. they actually had a liability in the old style policies.

In my eventually successful claim for a holiday cancellation from March I had a conversation (one of many) with the Insurers along the following lines.

Insurance Co Rep. "If your policy was taken out after 13th March 2020 then we have no liability for claims made due to Covid or any other Pandemic. All new policies now specifically exclude such claims".

Me. "If you check your records I took out the (annual cover) policy last October".

Them. "We still deny your claim because no-one expected a Pandemic and we cant be held liable".

So basically "Pi$$ off"; if they felt the need to change the policies to exclude Pandemics then surely the original policies included them. It is only common sense to me. I got a pay out by getting a doctors certificate and months of pestering them but they appeared to still be generally holding onto the 'Pandemics don't count nonsense'. Despite 'winning' in the end my experience makes me uncertain as to whether the Club will be ultimately successful with their claim!

The problem is that nobody can write a policy with every eventuality, and therefore we end up where we are now.  I think the courts should interpret the intent of the policy, the wording and how policyholders will understand it rather than how a lawyer would.  

This case will turn on who has the better lawyers rather then the better case - no different to most cases many will say but I'd counter that prisons aren't full of innocent people. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, troodee1893 said:

Most of the big companies have already rewritten their policies to specifically rule out pandemics or Covid in particular or so I have read. It seems to me that if this was necessary then there was something in the original wording that made them do so e.g. they actually had a liability in the old style policies.

In my eventually successful claim for a holiday cancellation from March I had a conversation (one of many) with the Insurers along the following lines.

Insurance Co Rep. "If your policy was taken out after 13th March 2020 then we have no liability for claims made due to Covid or any other Pandemic. All new policies now specifically exclude such claims".

Me. "If you check your records I took out the (annual cover) policy last October".

Them. "We still deny your claim because no-one expected a Pandemic and we cant be held liable".

So basically "Pi$$ off"; if they felt the need to change the policies to exclude Pandemics then surely the original policies included them. It is only common sense to me. I got a pay out by getting a doctors certificate and months of pestering them but they appeared to still be generally holding onto the 'Pandemics don't count nonsense'. Despite 'winning' in the end my experience makes me uncertain as to whether the Club will be ultimately successful with their claim!

To me this like the bookie saying “Nobody expected Leicester City to win the premiership, so we can’t be held liable”.
The point of insurance is to safeguard yourself from the unexpected, and often we pay a lot of money for the unexpected to ultimately not happen. I’m sure insurance companies have made a pretty penny over the years accepting money on the understanding that a pandemic of such scale must have been at least a million-to-one shot. For them now to try and wriggle out of their agreement is scandalous. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
6 hours ago, DFC1974 said:

To me this like the bookie saying “Nobody expected Leicester City to win the premiership, so we can’t be held liable”.
The point of insurance is to safeguard yourself from the unexpected, and often we pay a lot of money for the unexpected to ultimately not happen. I’m sure insurance companies have made a pretty penny over the years accepting money on the understanding that a pandemic of such scale must have been at least a million-to-one shot. For them now to try and wriggle out of their agreement is scandalous. 

and this act of God pish!

We are not paying out because flood, famine and fire is an act of God!

lucious lyon wtf GIF

  • Star Post 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HK Blues said:

The problem is that nobody can write a policy with every eventuality, and therefore we end up where we are now.  I think the courts should interpret the intent of the policy, the wording and how policyholders will understand it rather than how a lawyer would.  

This case will turn on who has the better lawyers rather then the better case - no different to most cases many will say but I'd counter that prisons aren't full of innocent people. 

The judge will also have played a major role in interpreting the arguements. There are facts to law and also morality and intent, etc, etc. Tomorrows result will be interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.