older woman signing the document

COVID-19 Insurance Claims

Caroline Hutchinson ||

Does COVID-19 exclude me from making an insurance claim?

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has delivered a stunning judgment in relation to insurance claims made by small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The recent decision of HDI Global Specialty SE v Wonkana No. 3 Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 296 was concerned with so called “pandemic exclusion” clauses contained in certain insurance policies covering business interruption.

Business owners who may have suffered loss due to business interruptions are urged to reconsider their position on whether they are capable of making a claim. If your policy contains a similar exclusion for quarantinable diseases, then you may be entitled to cover.

Conversely, Insurance companies should refer to the recent decision and invite policyholders to make a claim if they have suffered a business interruption as a result of the pandemic. Contingent upon a possible appeal, insurance companies may be forced to pay significant sums to those businesses which have been interrupted by the pandemic.

Background of the Case

Insurance companies have been regularly refusing claims for COVID-19 related issues on the basis that their policies excluded business interruptions caused by “quarantinable diseases”. It was backed by the Insurance Council of Australia and brought as a test case with the aim of validating their position on rejecting claims made throughout the pandemic.

The policies contained provisions to provide cover for business interruptions caused by:

“Outbreaks of infectious or contagious human diseases within a 20km radius of the relevant business premises.”

However, it contained an exclusion for diseases determined to be:

Quarantinable diseases under the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth)”

The problem was that the Quarantine Act had been repealed and replaced with the new Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). Whilst much of the wording contained in the Quarantine Act was incorporated into the new Biosecurity Act, there was no reference to “quarantinable diseases”. Instead, the Biosecurity Act provides for certain diseases to be determined as “listed human diseases”. It was also accepted that COVID-19 had been determined as a “listed human disease”.

The insurance companies argued that their policies excluding quarantinable diseases should be interpreted as excluding listed human diseases. Therefore, they insisted that policyholders should be prevented from making a business interruption claim in relation to COVID-19.

Reasoning 

The primary argument put forward by the insurers was that, as a matter of construction, the Court should effectively replace the wording so as to avoid absurdity. The Court did not accept that the mistaken reference to the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) could attract the benefit of the principles of absurdity. The Court observed that the exclusion could still operate in a workable manner because it could still exclude diseases which had been previously declared as quarantinable diseases.

Therefore, the actual wording of the contract could not be displaced.

The Court of Appeal also struck down an argument that the reference to “subsequent amendments” in the policy could include the new Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). It was held that “subsequent amendments” did not encompass a reference to a new, replacement statute.

Outcome

For the reasons detailed above, the Court of Appeal unanimously concluded that the relevant exclusion did not apply to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disease had not been declared a quarantinable disease under the repealed Quarantine Act.

Whilst this decision marks a major blow to the insurance industry, it is expected that the Insurance Council of Australia will support an urgent appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Conclusion

The key takeaway is to carefully read your insurance policy and seek advice if you think you have been wrongly denied in a claim for a COVID-19 related business interruption.

If you require any assistance with any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact a member of Coleman Greig’s Litigation and Disputes team, who would be more than happy to assist you.

Share:

Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.

Categories
Archives
Author

More posts

A guide to intrafamily adoption

Adoption is the process where a parent’s legal rights for their child are transferred to another person. The formal adoption of a stepchild or close relative is known as intrafamily adoption.

Passenger movement and visa data-matching by the ATO

Heading overseas for work or a holiday? Taxation issues, including tax residency, should be on front of mind when departing from or arriving to Australia. Why? Because the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) can follow your footprints and, if you’re not careful, spring unexpected taxes on you.

Is it really necessary for my executor to have so many powers?

People often question why the executor of their estate needs to have so many powers. Simply put – if your executor isn’t given any additional powers by your Will, then they are limited to what is set out in the Trustee Act. One area that this can lead to issues in, is the family home – particularly if beneficiaries aren’t in agreement.

Essential terms of a commercial lease

A commercial lease is a contract that details the rights and obligations of a tenant and landlord. So, what are the necessary terms of a commercial lease?

Responding to data breaches

In the final part of our four-part series on your business’ responsibilities related to cyber attacks and data breaches, Special Counsel John Bennett how businesses should respond to data breaches, including application and requirements of the Notifiable Data Breaches Scheme.

Security of personal information

Part 3 of a four-part series on your business’ responsibilities related to cyber attacks and data breaches where Special Counsel, John Bennett provides an overview of some court decisions and proceedings where ‘security’ of personal information has come into issue.

Parental alienation in Family Law

The concept, Parental Alienation Syndrome, was initially brought about by American psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985. The term parental alienation is used to describe a situation where one parent is involved in psychologically manipulating their child to turn against the other parent.

Are you liable for labour hire workers if they are injured?

Many employers (host employers) engage employees of labour hire companies, particularly in the building and construction, hospitality and manufacturing industries. However, what happens when one of these employees gets injured at the host employer’s work site? Who is liable for the injuries?

The risks with cyber attacks and data breaches

Part 1 of a four-part series on your business’ responsibilities related to cyber attacks and data breaches. Cyber attacks and data breaches are the top business risk in Australia according to Aon’s 2023 Global Risk Management Survey.

© 2024 Coleman Greig Lawyers  |  Sitemap  |  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. ABN 73 125 176 230