“The cover is designed to operate in respect of a specific and defined list of diseases which does not extend to include COVID-19. Recent changes to legislation added COVID-19 to the list of notifiable infectious diseases, which is the term used to refer to the legal requirement to report certain specific diseases to the relevant authority. We have had queries from customers as to whether COVID-19 is the same as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and can confirm that per the relevant public health regulations COVID-19 is a distinct and separate reportable disease from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).”
“Infectious Diseases The insurance by this Section extends to include interruption of or interference with Your Business in consequence of closure of the Premises or part thereof on the order advice or stipulation of any government or local authority as a result of 1) any human infectious or human contagious Disease (excluding Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome [AIDS] or an AIDS-related condition) manifested by any person whilst at the Premises or within a 25 mile radius of the Premises 2) murder or suicide occurring at the Premises 3) injury or illness sustained by any visitor arising from or traceable to foreign or injurious matter in food or drink provided on the Premises 4) defects in the drains or other sanitary arrangements at the Premises or the Premises becoming infested with vermin or pests 1) – 4) are stated in the Appendix as Infectious Diseases For the purpose of this Extension Indemnity Period means the period during which the results of Your Business are affected in consequence of the outbreak or Event beginning with the date when restrictions on the Premises are imposed and ending not later than the Indemnity Period.”
“Each Section may include terms Definitions Conditions and Exclusions unique to the Section which should to be read in conjunction with the Policy Definitions Conditions and Exclusions.”
“Section Definitions These definitions apply to this Section wherever these words or phrases appear with an upper case letter except where otherwise stated”
“Disease means any of the following diseases sustained by any person acute encephalitis acute infectious hepatitis acute meningitis acute poliomyelitis anthrax botulism brucellosis cholera diphtheria enteric fever (typhoid or paratyphoid) food poisoning haemolytic uraemic syndrome(HUS) infectious bloody diarrhoea invasive group A streptococcal disease legionellosis leprosy malaria measles meningococcal septicaemia mumps plague rabies rubella SARS scarlet fever smallpox tetanus tuberculosis typhus viral haemorrhagic fever (VHF) whooping cough and yellow fever”
“Opportunistic infections Infection risk You'll be at risk of developing infections you would not normally be at risk of if your immune system has been damaged by the HIV virus. These opportunistic infections, as they're called, happen when you have a very weak immune system. But if you take your HIV treatment, the likelihood of developing these is low. The 4 main types of opportunistic infections are: • bacterial infections, such as pneumonia (Link: www.nhs.uk/conditions/pneumonia/) or tuberculosis (TB) (Link: www.nhs.uk/conditions/tuberculosis-tb/) • fungal infections, such as oral thrush (Link: www.nhs.uk/conditions/oral-thrush-mouth-thrush/) and pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) • parasitic infections, such as toxoplasmosis (Link: www.nhs.uk/conditions/toxoplasmosis/) • viral infections, such as shingles (Link: www.nhs.uk/conditions/shingles/) herpes zoster) People with advanced HIV also have a higher risk of developing some forms of cancer, such as cancer of the lymphatic system (lymphoma) (Link: www.nhs.uk/conditions/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/).”
“[47]. The core principle is that an insurance policy, like any other contract, must be interpreted objectively by asking what a reasonable person, with all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties when they entered into the contract, would have understood the language of the contract to mean.”
“Assureds such as BLG have brokers who can advise them, and brokers are to be taken to be familiar with the basic insurance principle of proximate causation, and language which reflects it or, by contrast, modifies it. Both assured and broker have access to legal advice which would involve no pedantry in advising on the presumptions involved in the use of such language. This is part of “the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties”
“Definitions in statutes and deeds can be exhaustive or non-exhaustive. Non-exhaustive definitions are usually prefaced by the word ‘include’. More often, however, a definition is intended to be exhaustive, and it will then generally begin with the word ‘mean’ or ‘means’. It is difficult to read a definition which begins with the word ‘means’ as other than exhaustive.”
“A heading to a clause may be taken into account in construing the clause, but it cannot override clear words in a clause or create an ambiguity where, but for the heading, none would otherwise exist. Where the contract so provides, headings should not be taken into account.”
“Much has been said about force majeure. Those words are there as a heading to cl. 33. But I do not regard them as more than a label or signpost, and not as contributing to the interpretation of the clause.”
“This principle is sometimes labelled the argument from redundancy. Although this principle was often given weight in earlier cases, its value is much reduced in more modern cases. As Patten LJ put it in Al-Hasawi v Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd[2019] EWCA Civ 2242 “arguments based on surplusage or redundancy are rarely reliable or sure ground on issues of construction”
“Whilst the redundancy argument has a role to play in the exercise of contractual interpretation, it all depends on the construction issue in question, the effect of the alternative interpretation and the contractual context as a whole. The mere fact that a natural interpretation of a contract could render another term redundant is an insufficient basis for an unnatural construction, especially where a standard form is involved.”
“These principles apply to the interpretation of contractual provisions using defined terms. As is well known, the use of defined terms in commercial contracts is a commonplace; they are a convenient drafting technique as shorthand labels to express a concept or meaning more fully set out in the defined term (cf Chartbrook at [17]). Where the Court is interpreting a contractual provision which uses a defined term, the starting point for a textual analysis will often be the defined meaning, because the fact that the parties have chosen to use it in the provision being interpreted is often an indication that they intended it to bear its defined meaning when so used. Often, but not always. It is a common experience that defined terms are not always used consistently by contractual draftsmen throughout a commercial contract. Where a defined term is used inconsistently within a contract, so as sometimes to bear the defined meaning and sometimes a different meaning, the potency of the inference that the parties intended it to bear its defined meaning in a particular provision is much diminished. The question becomes whether they intended to use it in its defined meaning, as in some other clauses, or as meaning something other than its defined meaning, as in different other clauses. Even where there is no inconsistency of use within the contract outside the provision being interpreted, it does not follow that effect must always be given to the defined meaning. If, as is well known, parties sometimes use defined terms inappropriately, it follows that they may have done so only once, in the provision which is being interpreted. The process of interpretation remains the iterative process in which the language used must be tested against the commercial consequences and the background facts reasonably available to the parties at the time of contracting. Such an exercise may lead to the conclusion that the parties did not intend the defined term to bear the defined meaning in the provision in question. That is no different from the Court concluding that the parties intended a word or phrase to have a different meaning from what would at first sight seem to be its ordinary or natural meaning.”
“[28] The defendant referred to decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service addressing a similar question based on what appeared to be an identical wording and declining to treat it as a non-damage clause. I gave these rulings limited weight since they go to what is fair and reasonable rather than legal entitlement. They were of some reassurance in supporting the agreed factual matrix, and showing that clause 8.2.6 is not an anomalous, erroneous or outlier wording.”
“The other main point which [complainant’s name redacted] raised is the policy extension’s reference to AIDS. I understand they feel this creates ambiguity because they think it wouldn’t need excluding if the policy referred to a specific list of diseases. However, I don’t think it results in ambiguity or a reading where the list of diseases is effectively disregarded. As mentioned, the word “Disease” is capitalised in the extension, which means it has a specific definition in the policy and in this case there is the list which sets out what is covered. I think the reference to AIDS was so that AIG could make clear that the specified diseases aren’t covered where they’re related to AIDS.”
“This doesn’t mean that any human infectious or human contagious disease that isn’t AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is covered. Instead, it clarifies that the specified diseases wouldn’t be covered where AIDS is the primary cause.”
“AIG have told us that the list of diseases has not been amended since the policy wording was first developed. AIG said that to add a new disease in the policy it would have to consider the rationale for adding the disease to the policy wording, internal guidelines, consult underwriters and re-consider premium.”
“On the true construction of the Policy, the word “Disease” appearing in the phrase “any human infectious or human contagious Disease (excluding Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome [AIDS] or an AIDS-related condition)” in the Infectious Disease extension to the Business Interruption section of the Policy is to be understood as limited to the specific diseases listed in the definition of “Disease” in the business interruption section (which does not include Covid-19).”