Insurance Law Monthly

Corbin & King Ltd v Axa Insurance UK plc [2022] EWHC 409 (Comm) is the latest English decision to apply the reasoning of the decision of the Supreme Court in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] Lloyd’s Rep IR 63 on the application of business interruption cover to Covid-19. There were three issues in the present case: did the relevant clause cover Covid-19 losses; had the causal requirements been met; and how did the financial limits of the policy apply where a number of companies were all named assureds?

The Court of Appeal in Colley v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2022] EWCA Civ 360 considered the effects of an avoidance of a compulsory motor insurance policy before the victim had obtained judgment against the assured. Since November 2019 avoidance after the date of the accident has not been permissible, but this case concerned the unamended law and at a time when the UK remained subject to EU rules. The case is thus of historical interest only, but it may have implications for other cases of the same type.

The Court of Appeal in Herculito Maritime Ltd and Others v Gunvor International BV and Others (The Polar) [2021] EWCA Civ 1828 has affirmed the first instance judgment of Sir Nigel Teare on issues arising out of the insurance arrangements in a charterparty. The main questions were: had the shipowners agreed to grant immunity to the charterers for general average contributions by accepting an obligation to insure against piracy risks with the charterers paying the premiums; and if there was such immunity, did it extend to the holders of the bills of lading.

Berkshire Assets (West London) Ltd v Axa Insurance UK plc [2021] EWHC 2689 (Comm) is the first reported case on the issues of materiality and inducement under the duty of fair presentation set out in the Insurance Act 2015. The judgment of Lionel Persey QC shows that nothing much has changed from the old law in these contexts.

In two decisions issued on 22 April the Iowa Supreme Court held claims for Covid-19-related loss of use do not constitute covered “direct physical loss of or damage to property”.The decision came a day after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts also backed insurers in a business interruption case.