21. Juli 2020
Disputes Quick Read – 94 von 103 Insights
A consideration of arguments on the principles of contractual construction in the FCA test case on business interruption insurance.
Like many industries across the country, we are closely following the FCA's novel test case seeking clarity on business interruption insurance during the coronavirus crisis. The 10-day trial starts in the High Court on 20 July. Businesses – particularly SME policyholders, who the FCA is taking a strong stance in favour of in the case – may stand or fall depending on the case's outcome.
Although this case relates to insurance policies, what the Court is essentially carrying out is an exercise in contractual construction, clarifying the objective meaning of the wording of the policies in question. The Court has clear guidance from the Supreme Court on this issue – most recently in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, [2017] AC 1173 – and, as the FCA comments in its 300+ page skeleton argument for the hearing, the general principles of contractual construction "are unlikely to be controversial".
While this appears to be so for the most part, differences between the parties on this issue have inevitably arisen, and the Court's approach is likely to have wider application beyond cases concerning the interpretation of insurance policies.
One such issue the Court might need to resolve is the role of the longstanding doctrine of contra proferentem. Understandably, the FCA seeks to rely on this rule, which they say requires the Court to apply a construction in favour of the insured where there is ambiguity about the construction of the policies.
The insurers have questioned the utility of the doctrine. They argue it is "out of step" with the principles of contractual interpretation and consider it "instructive" that the principle has not been mentioned in any of the recent Supreme Court decisions on contractual construction.
However, the insurers' attempt to do away with the doctrine seems ambitious to us. Their suggestion that the principle is, at most, a port of last resort, seems to be common ground – but it does not mean the doctrine has no place in the Court's consideration at all.
Given the test case concerns standard "off the shelf" policies, primarily for "unsophisticated" SMEs, the Court might look to the doctrine of contra proferentem if it is unable to resolve ambiguities in the policies. The insurers' argument that the policyholders were commercial parties who entered into the policies largely on the advice of brokers in a competitive insurance market seems unlikely to ring true with most of the SME policyholders affected by this case.
It therefore seems unlikely that the insurers' efforts to do away with this doctrine will be successful, and ambiguous clauses will continue to be construed against the party who proposed or drafted them. That said, the Court will be careful not to construe the wordings so strictly that it defies all business common sense.
21. Oktober 2025
von mehreren Autoren
11. Juni 2025
von Ryan Ferry, Edwina Kelly
30. Januar 2025
von Katie Chandler
22. Januar 2025
von mehreren Autoren
6. Dezember 2024
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
8. November 2024
30. Oktober 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. Oktober 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. Juli 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. Juli 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. März 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. Februar 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. Februar 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. Dezember 2023
13. Dezember 2023
17. Oktober 2023
von Katie Chandler
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. Juli 2023
10. Juli 2023
von Katie Chandler
1. Juni 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. Mai 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
5. April 2023
von Tom Charnley
8. März 2023
2. März 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. Februar 2023
13. Februar 2023
8. Februar 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. Januar 2023
von Georgina Jones
3. Oktober 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. Juli 2022
6. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
27. Juli 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. Juli 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. Juni 2022
von Stephanie High
13. Juni 2022
26. Mai 2022
31. Mai 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
von Emma Allen
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. März 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
von Matthew Caskie
13. September 2021
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. Juli 2021
15. Juli 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. Mai 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. Mai 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. März 2021
26. Februar 2021
von Tim Strong
24. Februar 2021
20. Januar 2021
von Stephanie High
12. Januar 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. Oktober 2020
23. September 2020
von Stuart Broom
7. Oktober 2020
von Nick Storrs
12. Mai 2020
18. Mai 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. März 2020
von James Bryden
17. März 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. Februar 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. Februar 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. Juli 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. Juli 2020
21. Juli 2020
3. Dezember 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. Oktober 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. Januar 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. Januar 2022
von Natalia Faekova
8. März 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. März 2022
von Stuart Broom
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
von Katie Chandler und Esha Marwaha
von mehreren Autoren
von Katie Chandler und Matt Evans