London's ExCel Centre wins insurance appeal over COVID-19 losses

Chubb

06/09/2024 14:54

LONDON, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The owners of London's ExCel
conference centre on Friday won an appeal brought by insurers,
including Allianz  ALVG.DE , over pandemic-related losses, which
its lawyers said could help thousands of other policyholders.
    London International Exhibition Centre Plc took legal action
at London's High Court in 2022 over business interruption 
losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming around 16
million pounds ($21.1 million) under its insurance policy.
    Its test case concerned "at the premises" clauses in various
insurance policies and whether the closure of businesses was
covered.
    The High Court ruled in favour of the ExCel Centre's owners
that the Supreme Court's 2021 ruling on radius clauses – which
cover losses caused by diseases being within a specific radius
of the business – also applied to at the premises cover.
    Allianz and fellow insurers Aviva  AV.L , Chubb  CB.BN  and
Zurich  ZURN.S  challenged that ruling at the Court of Appeal,
which dismissed their appeal on Friday.
    Law firm Stewarts, which represented the owners of the ExCel
Centre, said the ruling was a major win for policyholders.
    "This ruling confirms that thousands of businesses affected
by the COVID lockdowns who have not yet had a payout from their
insurers may now be able to pursue a claim," Aaron Le Marquer,
head of policyholder disputes at Stewarts, said.
    A spokesperson for Allianz said it was reviewing the
ruling's implications. 
    "We will also be in touch with any customers who are
affected by the 'at the premises' cases to provide them with an
update on their outstanding claims," the spokesperson said in a
statement.
    Aviva declined to comment. Chubb and Zurich did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.
    Peter Hardy, a partner at law firm Reed Smith who was not
involved in the case, described the decision as "a significant
victory for policyholders".
    "A finding for insurers would have resulted in different
tests for causation applying depending on whether a policyholder
purchased (at the premises) or radius wording," Hardy said.

 (Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Jan Harvey)
 ((Sam.Tobin@thomsonreuters.com;))