Menu
Supreme Court checks out of Orient Express Hotel

Insights / / Supreme Court checks out of Orient Express Hotel

The Financial Conduct Authority & others v. Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others [2021] UKSC 1

On 15 January 2020, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in this test case that was initiated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“”FCA”) in order to determine a number of common coverage issues pertaining to the correct response of non-damage business interruption policies to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court’s decision is, however, of general significance to all classes of insurance and beyond.

One of the central issues in the case was that of causation. The Court found that the risk insured under the various policies that it had been asked to consider was the business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of disease within a fixed radius of the insured premises or, in some cases, the denial or prevention of access to the insured premises as a result of action by the authorities following the outbreak of a ‘notifiable disease’ at or within a certain radius of the insured premises.

This analysis of the insured risk meant that the issue of causation became central – could it be said that a single occurrence of Covid-19 at or close to the insured business had caused the Government to impose the restrictions which in turn caused the interruption of the business?

In answering this question in the affirmative, the Supreme Court considered that it was realistic to analyse the situation as one in which “…all cases [of Covid 19] were equal causes of the imposition of the national measures.”  While it obviously could not be said that the occurrence of a case of Covid-19 within the required radius of the insured premises was either necessary or sufficient to bring about the imposition of the Government restrictions, it was, nonetheless, one of many concurrent causes of those restrictions.  Consequently, as long as none of the other concurrent causes was excluded by the policy, the necessary causal link between the happening of the insured peril and the insured’s loss could be established.

This result led the Supreme Court to conclude that policy holders were entitled to recover from their insurers if there had been a single case of the Covid-19 within the required radius and the business had suffered loss following the imposition of the Government restrictions.

Like the High Court below, the Supreme Court was reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that the policy expressly provided cover for losses resulting from infectious diseases of a kind which the parties must have expected would occur all over the country and not just within the specified radius of the insured premises. The Supreme Court also pointed to the fact that the policies under consideration did not stipulate that the outbreak of the infectious disease to which they responded should only occur within the defined area.

The Supreme Court then turned to consider the controversial decision in Orient Express Hotels v. Generali [2010]EWHC 1186. That case concerned a claim for business interruption loss by a hotel in New Orleans which had been devastated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  The insurers successfully defended the claim on the basis that even if it had not itself suffered damage, the loss to the hotel would have been the same because of the devastation to the surrounding area of New Orleans. As a result, insurers argued, the damage to the hotel, which was the insured risk, could not be said to have ‘caused the loss’ to the hotel. The Court upheld this analysis, finding against the claimants. The insurers in FCA v. Arch placed much reliance on this decision to argue that because the loss to the insured businesses would have been caused by the Government’s national response to Covid-19 in any event, the fact that the loss might also have been caused by an outbreak of Covid-19 within the necessary radius of the premises was irrelevant.

It can be seen that this approach is unsustainable in the face of the Supreme Court’s analysis of the doctrine of concurrent causes – both damage to the hotel and the damage to the surrounding area were causes of the loss in that case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that Orient Express was wrongly decided and should be overturned.  Interestingly, two of the Supreme Court judges who reached this conclusion had been involved in formulating the original decision in Orient Express – one as an arbitrator and the other as the appellate judge.

In summary, the Supreme Court decision was a resounding success for the FCA and the policy holders and an important reminder to everyone concerned with insurance that the doctrine of concurrent cause is very much alive and kicking. The Supreme Court has checked out of the Orient Express hotel.

Simon Cooper

Simon Cooper Consultant

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

News / Dan Crockford appointed as Head of Office for Ince (Bristol)

23-06-2022 / Insurance

We are delighted to announce that Dan Crockford has recently been appointed as Head of Office for Ince (Bristol).

Dan Crockford appointed as Head of Office for Ince (Bristol)

News / Court construes scope of indemnity under Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance Policy

06-06-2022 / Insurance, Maritime

Piraeus Bank A.E. v Antares Underwriting Limited and others (The ZouZou) [2022] EWHC 1169 (Comm)

Court construes scope of indemnity under Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance Policy

News / The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review Tenth Edition

19-05-2022 / Insurance

We are delighted to share with you the tenth edition of The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review edited by Simon Cooper. As with previous years, Ince was a member of The Law Reviews (TLR) leading panel of contributors. 

The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review Tenth Edition

News / High Court assesses insurable interest principle and late payment damages claim

16-03-2022 / Insurance, Maritime

Quadra Commodities SA v XL Insurance Company SE & Ors [2022] EWHC 431 (Comm) This recent High Court case deals with a claim arising from the “Agroinvestgroup Fraud” which affected the Ukrainian agribusiness in early 2019. It provides useful guidance on the interpretation of all-risks cargo policies and, for the first time, how the Courts will treat claims for late payment damages under section 13A of the Insurance Act 2015.

High Court assesses insurable interest principle and late payment damages claim

Insights / Chambers Global Practice Guides - Insurance & Reinsurance 2022

02-02-2022 / Insurance

We are delighted to share with you Simon Cooper's input as Contributing Editor to this year's Chambers Global Practice Guides - Insurance & Reinsurance 2022.

Chambers Global Practice Guides - Insurance & Reinsurance 2022

News / Ince achieve top rankings in the new Chambers and Partners Greater China Region 2022 Guide

18-01-2022 / Insurance, Maritime

The firm maintained its high rankings in Shipping and Insurance across China and Hong Kong jurisdictions.

Ince achieve top rankings in the new Chambers and Partners Greater China Region 2022 Guide