back to article Fighting an insurer over lockdown payout? UK policyholders just won an important COVID-19 test case

The High Court of England and Wales has said insurers should pay up on a raft of key "test" clauses in a ruling affecting hundreds of thousands of UK businesses forced to close during the UK's COVID-19 lockdown. In a 150-page whopper of a judgement handed down yesterday, the court found in favour of most of the arguments …

  1. heyrick Silver badge

    I can imagine this will ultimately be a phyrric victory

    Yes, you'll get cover.

    And yes, your policies will cost twice as much next year (and they'll probably sneak in wording to discount such an event in the future).

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: I can imagine this will ultimately be a phyrric victory

      Or you won't be able to get cover at all.

      Just look at people who have had flood damage as example, even if it was a once in a 200 year occurance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I can imagine this will ultimately be a phyrric victory

        "Just look at people who have had flood damage as example, even if it was a once in a 200 year occurance."

        We'll just ignore the fact that the insurers are legally required to offer cover, unless they can demonstrate that the government was negligent in its' maintenance of flood defences, and even then there's the Flood Re scheme to lower premiums ...

      2. tim 13

        Re: I can imagine this will ultimately be a phyrric victory

        We flooded in 2007. Not only were HSBC very generous and helpful with the insurance payout, they didn't put our premiums up more than inflation for the 5 years we lived there after that.

    2. streaky

      Re: I can imagine this will ultimately be a phyrric victory

      "And yes, your policies will cost twice as much next year"

      That's the nature of insurance, it's a hedge against unforeseen but potential events, that's what you're paying for.

      It won't however be priced in such a way that insurers will assume this will happen every year until the end of time, for one thing because such a policy won't be viable.

  2. Phones Sheridan
    Trollface

    What an incredibly sensible, customer friendly judgement. Not only that, it was hurried through the courts in a speedy and efficient manner!

    Such a travesty cannot be allowed to happen again surely! Somebody please, think of the lawyers!

    1. katrinab Silver badge
      Happy

      The lawyers will be fine. Did you see how many of them are listed on the front page of the judgement.

      1. Ashto5

        WHAT!!!

        Come on be real there is always space for MORE lawyers.

  3. streaky

    Questionable..

    How the insurers ever thought they would win given some of the policy wording involved.

    TL;DR:

    If there's a pandemic, we'll pay out.

    There's a pandemic.

    We're not paying out, you're not covered in pandemics.

    Either these people are covered or you mis-sold many of them insurance, would you like to talk about compensation now or later?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020