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).
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 …
"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 ...
"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.
How the insurers ever thought they would win given some of the policy wording involved.
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?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022