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The problem was that the Quarantine Act had been repealed and replaced with the new Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).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.


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.


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.


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.


Send an enquiry

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


More posts

SafeWork NSW
SafeWork NSW releases new strategy to address psychosocial hazards

On 22 May 2024 SafeWork NSW introduced a new strategy to address psychological and psychosocial hazards. The SafeWork NSW Psychological Health and Safety Strategy 2024-2026 establishes new supports for employers regarding their duties in preventing psychosocial harm in the workplace.

roles in the strata scheme
Understanding roles in the strata scheme

A strata scheme is a building or group of buildings that have been divided into lots which can be apartments, villas, offices, units or townhouses. This will be articulated in the strata plan.

Airbnb home
Can I put my home on Airbnb?

Airbnb is a form of short-term rental accommodation. To add your property to Airbnb in NSW, you are required to meet several laws and regulations governing short-term rentals.

liquidators required to seek approval
When are liquidators required to seek approval to retain legal counsel?

When does a liquidator (or the company he or she is appointed to) need court, creditor, or committee approval to validly retain a solicitor to act in a liquidation matter which is likely to extend for longer than three months?  The answer to this question has only recently been settled.

Proposed changes to building
Proposed changes to building and construction law in NSW

The Building Bill 2022 (the Bill) is the key avenue through which the NSW Government has proposed to reshape the culture of the building and construction industry by eliminating poor performance and improving the quality of building statewide.

Dismiss an employee
Can you dismiss an employee who fails to return to the office?

Slowly but surely, most employers are requiring employees to return to the office for at least a portion of their working week. Some employers continue to struggle with employees resistant to returning to the office or those who have an expectation that they can continue to work from home whenever it suits them.

Phoenixing in Construction
New powers to combat phoenixing in construction

The rise of phoenixing in the building and construction industry in Australia in recent years has proved a significant challenge to regulators. Mismanagement of time or cashflow can quickly propel businesses into insolvency.

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