21 juillet 2020
Disputes Quick Read – 84 de 93 Publications
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.
16 July 2024
par Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5 July 2024
par Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21 March 2024
par Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1 February 2024
par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12 February 2024
par Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
17 October 2023
14 August 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
4 August 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
3 May 2023
par James Bryden
20 April 2023
par James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
par Jessie Prynne
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
par Gemma Broughall
22 September 2022
par Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
par Nick Maday
25 July 2022
par Edward Spencer
6 July 2022
par Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
21 July 2022
par Edward Spencer
27 July 2022
par Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
par Stephanie High
13 June 2022
par Edward Spencer
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
par Stephanie High
31 March 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
21 September 2021
par plusieurs auteurs
13 September 2021
par Edward Spencer
6 September 2021
par Stephanie High
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
26 May 2021
par David de Ferrars
5 May 2021
par Stephen O'Grady
21 April 2021
par Stephanie High
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
par Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
par Stephanie High
12 January 2021
par Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
7 October 2020
par Nick Storrs
26 May 2020
par Edward Spencer
18 May 2020
par Katie Chandler
9 April 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
21 April 2020
par Stephanie High
11 March 2020
par James Bryden
17 March 2020
par Stuart Broom
26 March 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
26 February 2020
par Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21 February 2020
par Andrew Howell
2 June 2020
par Georgina Jones
16 June 2020
par Georgina Jones
2 July 2020
par Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
par Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
par Katie Chandler
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
par Katie Chandler et Matthew Caskie
par Katie Chandler et Helen Brannigan
Current framework and future developments
par plusieurs auteurs