Distant relations: business interruption insurance and business closure insurance.

Ulrich Stahl
{"title":"Distant relations: business interruption insurance and business closure insurance.","authors":"Ulrich Stahl","doi":"10.1057/s41288-023-00303-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article looks at COVID-19-related issues in the context of commercial and industrial insurance cover taken out against the risk of infectious disease. The focus is on government action taken and regulation passed in the U.K. and in Germany, respectively, to redress the pandemic. The insurance market offers business interruption (BI) cover (in the U.K. and internationally) as well as business closure (BC) cover (mainly in Germany) to protect against the impact of infectious diseases on commercial enterprises. The insurance law issues that came to be analysed in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic formed the subject matter of widespread litigation in both countries. Judgements were rendered in the Supreme Court in the U.K. (the FCA test case) and in the German Federal Supreme Court and now provide some authoritative legal guidance. However, the outcome of these court battles was totally different, insofar as policyholders were concerned. This article, next to offering some historical legal analysis of BI and BC insurance cover, attempts to explain why policyholders won in court in the U.K. and lost the legal argument in Germany and seeks to reconcile these diverse outcomes. The article ends with a brief outlook on how the pertinent COVID-19 insurance law issues might come to be revisited, both by the markets and in the legal community, in the context of reinsurance coverage.</p>","PeriodicalId":75009,"journal":{"name":"The Geneva papers on risk and insurance. Issues and practice","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10244843/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Geneva papers on risk and insurance. Issues and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-023-00303-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article looks at COVID-19-related issues in the context of commercial and industrial insurance cover taken out against the risk of infectious disease. The focus is on government action taken and regulation passed in the U.K. and in Germany, respectively, to redress the pandemic. The insurance market offers business interruption (BI) cover (in the U.K. and internationally) as well as business closure (BC) cover (mainly in Germany) to protect against the impact of infectious diseases on commercial enterprises. The insurance law issues that came to be analysed in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic formed the subject matter of widespread litigation in both countries. Judgements were rendered in the Supreme Court in the U.K. (the FCA test case) and in the German Federal Supreme Court and now provide some authoritative legal guidance. However, the outcome of these court battles was totally different, insofar as policyholders were concerned. This article, next to offering some historical legal analysis of BI and BC insurance cover, attempts to explain why policyholders won in court in the U.K. and lost the legal argument in Germany and seeks to reconcile these diverse outcomes. The article ends with a brief outlook on how the pertinent COVID-19 insurance law issues might come to be revisited, both by the markets and in the legal community, in the context of reinsurance coverage.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远亲险:经营中断险、停业险。
本文着眼于针对传染病风险投保工商业保险的背景下与covid -19相关的问题。重点是英国和德国分别采取的政府行动和通过的法规,以应对大流行。保险市场提供业务中断(BI)保险(在英国和国际上)和业务关闭(BC)保险(主要在德国),以防止传染病对商业企业的影响。与COVID-19大流行相关的保险法问题在这两个国家形成了广泛诉讼的主题。英国最高法院(FCA测试案)和德国联邦最高法院的判决现在提供了一些权威的法律指导。然而,就投保人而言,这些法庭斗争的结果完全不同。本文除了对BI和BC保险范围进行一些历史法律分析外,还试图解释为什么投保人在英国的法庭上胜诉,而在德国的法律辩论中败诉,并试图调和这些不同的结果。文章最后简要展望了在再保险承保的背景下,市场和法律界如何重新审视相关的COVID-19保险法问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Microinsurance research: status quo and future research directions Investment in big data analytics and loss reserve accuracy: evidence from the U.S. property-liability insurance industry Actuarial premium calculation for beekeeping insurance in Turkiye Discretionary decisions in capital requirements under Solvency II Technology investment and insurer efficiency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1