Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 08/07/2026
Before
MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
Between
CP HOLDINGS LIMITED and 14 othersClaimants(1) ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI SpADefendants(2) GENERALI BIZTOSITO ZRTDefendant(3) GENERALI ROMANIA REASIGURARE SADefendantGuy Blackwood KC, David Walsh KC and Nathan Twibill (instructed by Wordley Partnership LLP) for ClaimantsRoger Masefield KC and Joanne Box (instructed by Birketts LLP) for DefendantsHearing Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26 March and 29 June 2026Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2.00 pm on 8 July 2026 by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
Introduction
[1]On 29 June 2026, I handed down a main judgment following a trial of preliminary issues: [2026] EWHC 1520 (Comm). This further judgment uses terms defined in that judgment, to which reference should be made for a fuller introduction to this Claim and the issues arising in it.[2]The Appendix to the main judgment set out in full the preliminary issues that had been ordered. I noted in the judgment, at [8], that it had been agreed at trial that the Appendix did not create an examination paper every question in which I had to answer; and, at [130], that in the event I had not considered it necessary to decide a number of the individual questions posed.[3]At the judgment hearing, as foreshadowed by what I said at [74], the claimants invited me to give further consideration to whether to grant declaratory relief, and if so what relief, in respect of Questions 1.1(1) to 1.1(4) and 1.3 within preliminary issue 1. The defendants accepted that it was open to me to reserve that to myself, qualifying what was otherwise the dismissal of the claimants’ claims in these proceedings that would follow from the failure of the rectification claim and of the claims under the Hungarian and Romanian Policies. They were neutral as to whether I should do so.[4]I was persuaded by the claimants that it was proper to reserve jurisdiction to myself in that way, and that I should do so. A decision on those Questions cannot affect the overall outcome of the claimants’ claims on the insurance they had for the 2019-2020 policy period, given the failure of the rectification claim. However:(1) the correct answer to those Questions was disputed between the parties and that dispute was fully ventilated at the preliminary issues trial;(2) it is possible that answering those Questions now might assist the claimants in considering the consequences of the failure of their rectification claim, including in any ongoing dealings between them and Aon UK, albeit Aon UK is not bound by anything determined in this Claim unless the position as to that is affected by some agreement to which Aon UK is privy. In that regard, I am aware that an application by the claimants to join Aon UK to this Claim was stayed by a Consent Order dated 23 January 2025, with liberty for the application to be restored but only for the purpose of asking the court to make a costs order in relation to the application. I do not know what, if any, further terms may have been agreed between the claimants and Aon UK, at that time or since.[5]I was not persuaded that there is any real prospect of a successful appeal against the failure of the rectification claim, the suggested existence of which was another factor said to favour a reservation of jurisdiction. Even in the absence of that factor, however, on balance I consider it just and convenient now to answer Questions 1.1(1) to 1.1(4) and 1.3, on the basis of the evidence and submissions received at the preliminary issues trial.[6]Those Questions all concern the limits of the cover provided by the 2018 Global Policy wording, specifically:(1) the meaning and effect of the “Policy Loss Limit” (Question 1.1(1));(2) the meaning and effect of the Disease Clause sub-limit (Question 1.1(2));(3) the maximum indemnity period of the BI cover (Question 1.1(3));(4) the impact (if any) of General Clause 5 (Question 1.1(4));(5) the operation of limits and the maximum indemnity period to multiple insureds or multiple premises or locations, including whether there was an annual aggregate limit for BI losses covered by the Disease Clause (Question 1.3).
Policy Terms
[7]The provisions of the 2018 Global Policy material to those Questions are set out in the Appendix to this judgment.[8]In the main judgment, I referred to the annual spreadsheet by which the parties listed the businesses/locations insured, with insured values for each ([2026] EWHC 1520 at [35]). The Schedule forming part of the 2018 Global Policy, and from which I quote in the Appendix below, was referring to that spreadsheet when it referred to:(1) a “Full Breakdown … held on file with Insurer” as regards “the property insured” (Section A, Material Damage) and “items / the premises” (Section B, Business Interruption),(2) the “total specification sum insured” being “As notified by the Insured and held on file with the Insurer”, and(3) the “Business” being “As declared to and agreed by the Insurer”.[9]The figures per country in the tables for each Section (e.g. for Hungary, €484,926,000 for Section A, €366,291,000 for Section B) were aggregate totals from that spreadsheet, per country, of building reinstatement and other insured property values (Section A), and rent/revenue exposures based on a total loss of business for 36 months (Section B). The spreadsheet stated all values in Euros, whereas the Schedule stated values at risk in the UK in Sterling, but that is an immaterial detail. As stated in the Schedule forming part of the 2018 Global Policy, those aggregate totals will have been taken from the edition of the spreadsheet provided for the 2018 renewal. Had the rectification claim succeeded, then for considering Covid-19 BI claims arising in and after March 2020 with the benefit of the conformity term contended for by the claimants, the 2018 Schedule would have fallen to be treated as stating the equivalent figures from the subsequent edition of the spreadsheet provided for the 2019 renewal.[10]As I noted in the main judgment, the claimants’ claims on the 2018 Global Policy were made under Clause 8 of the Supplementary Clauses Applicable to Section B (‘the Disease Clause’). Some of those Supplementary Clauses, including the Disease Clause, extended the BI cover under Section B of the 2018 Global Policy beyond that provided by the main provisions of Section B of the policy. Some of those extensions, including the extension under the Disease Clause, created BI cover that did not require any loss or destruction of, or damage to, any of the insureds’ property to have occurred.[11]Although other possible constructions may have been pleaded as alternative cases, and while this may not quite capture all of the Questions addressed in this judgment, the key difference between the parties was that:(1) the defendants said the 2018 Global Policy’s €10m sub-limit under the Disease Clause was an annual aggregate policy limit, General Clause 5 cut off any argument that each claimant might have the benefit of a separate limit, and therefore the first defendant’s aggregate liability to all of the claimants in respect of Covid-19 BI losses, if the claimants had been able to rely on the 2018 Global Policy terms as a result of rectification of the 2019 Global Policy, would in any event have been capped at €10m; whereas(2) the claimants said the 2018 Global Policy limits, including the Disease Clause €10m sub-limit, were limits per loss, and that each insured business, as declared by the annual spreadsheet, suffered its own, separate Covid-19 BI loss (or losses) covered by the Disease Clause (had it been applicable). On that basis, General Clause 5 was irrelevant – the claimants said they did not rely on their separate corporate identities, and the concept of separate insurance under that Clause, to increase any applicable policy limit. If all the declared businesses had been owned and operated by only one of the claimants, still each separate business, as declared, would have had its own €10m limit per loss under the Disease Clause.
Question 1.1(1) – the ‘Policy Loss Limit’
[12]The Policy Loss Limit was €150,000,000. It was expressly a limit(i) per “Loss” but then(ii) in the aggregate, for that Loss, as regards PD and BI. In saying that, I am just stating in a slightly different way the plain meaning of the Policy Loss Limit being, as stated in the 2018 Schedule, a limit “Each and Every Loss Property Damage and Business Interruption combined”.[13]Under the 2018 Global Policy, and although used in a number of places in capitalised form, “Loss” was not a defined term. Its use in the Schedule in defining deductibles and limits “Each and Every Loss” plainly connoted a single insured loss. That turn of phrase made clear that there first had to be a loss covered by the policy, then those deductibles and limits between them had the meaning and effect that in respect of that loss (once its final magnitude was properly measured, applying where relevant any policy terms affecting that measurement) it was indemnified to the extent that it(a) exceeded the deductible and(b) did not exceed the limit.[14]The policy wording contemplated the possibility of aggregate annual limits of liability. Most explicitly, for example, the proviso within the primary insuring provision of Section A stated that “the liability of the Insurer in respect of any one loss or in the aggregate in any one period of insurance shall in no case exceed any limit of liability shown in the Schedule”. As the use of “any limit” confirms, however, whether in fact an aggregate annual limit was provided for was a matter for the Schedule, not the policy wording. Again, the primary insuring provision for the basic BI cover under Section B included a proviso that liability “in any one period of insurance shall in no case exceed any limit of liability shown in the Schedule”; but that cannot turn a ‘per loss’ limit stated in the Schedule into an aggregate annual limit, and does not assume that there was any aggregate annual limit.[15]Similarly, the provision in General Clause 5, stating that the notional existence under the 2018 Global Policy of separate insurance for each insured did not increase the limits of liability provided for in the Schedule, did not dictate whether the Schedule in fact provided for any limits of liability that, by nature and in the absence of that provision, would increase because of the existence of multiple insureds. An annual policy limit in the aggregate would be such a limit. General Clause 5 therefore ensured that if such a limit was provided for in the Schedule, it would operate in the aggregate across all insureds, not merely in the aggregate across all insured losses suffered by the same insured. That does not mean, however, that the Schedule must be read as if it contained such a limit, nor does it create any bias or presumption when interpreting the Schedule that it was likely or intended to contain one.[16]The defendants argued that the claimants were wrong to contend that the ‘no increase in limits’ element of General Clause 5 was irrelevant because, so the defendants said, on the claimants’ construction of the 2018 Global Policy limits General Clause 5 “would [then] be irrelevant in all cases, and would not have been included at all”. That is an appeal to the so-called presumption against surplusage, which carries no real weight when applied to a bit of familiar insurance language in one of the General Conditions on page 57 of an 85-page policy, as part of considering the meaning and effect of the policy Schedule set out 50 pages earlier. No reasonable policyholder would have thought, reading General Clause 5, that the insurer had identified from the Schedule limits that would multiply or otherwise increase with multiple insureds (as against if there was only one insured that owned/operated all the properties/businesses), and therefore made a deliberate decision to include the ‘no increase in limits’ bit of that Clause to counteract that effect. The invocation of the presumption against surplusage is particularly detached from reality in a case like this.[17]The Schedule also listed for Section A, and again for Section B, a set of “Sub-Limits”. It did not specify, in terms, however, whether those operated ‘each and every loss’, in line with the primary Policy Loss Limit, or in the annual aggregate, or in some other way. The use of the descriptor ‘sub-limit’ connotes a conceptual equivalence to the primary limit; and each of the specified sub-limits is readily and naturally meaningful as a limit applicable per loss. The reasonable policyholder would not read the Schedule and understand, there being no language to this effect, that in fact the ‘sub-limits’ were radically different in nature.[18]The annual spreadsheet for the 2019-2020 insurance period would have been the edition that applied to any consideration of the claimants’ claims for Covid-19 BI losses by reference to the terms of the 2018 Global Policy following rectification, if the claim to rectification had succeeded. It was headed (slightly confusingly, but nothing turns on this) “Consolidated Property Schedule 2018” and contained 141 rows, each seemingly a location, property or undertaking. There would, I think, be room for argument over whether, properly construing that spreadsheet, certain sets of rows amounted, reading them sensibly, to a single declared business. Most notably, the entries for Czechia included several sets of “See above” rows that might, to be meaningful, convey that the rows in question went with a preceding row such that a set of several properties was being declared to the first defendant as a single business (e.g. in the spa town of Mariánské Lázné, the Pacifik, the Astoria and the Brusel seemed to be grouped together by that method).[19]The submissions at the preliminary issue trial did not descend to the level of detail that would be necessary to determine finally, for all 141 rows, how many separate insured businesses they declared. I do not consider that matters for my purposes. It is clear enough, in my view, that the function and intention of the spreadsheet was to make that kind of declaration, with associated declarations of insured values to lie behind the Schedule, for a determination of how as a matter of their proper construction the 2018 Global Policy limits of liability would have operated, if applicable.[20]The determination of whether one insured loss has occurred or several insured losses have occurred is not susceptible of much analysis in the abstract. I agree generally with the approach and conclusions of Sean O’Sullivan KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, in the context of Covid-19 BI insurance claims, in Bath Racecourse Co Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm) at [154], [163]-[164], and [167]-[174]. I note that it led him, as I have been led in this case, to see as significant the way in which the parties had listed or described the businesses covered by the policy in a spreadsheet by reference to which the insurance was placed (ibid at [182]-[200]).[21]My conclusions are that:(1) the Policy Loss Limit in the 2018 Global Policy was, as it described itself, a limit each and every loss (PD and BI combined), and not an aggregate annual limit;(2) for that purpose, in the case of ‘pure’ BI losses covered by the Disease Clause, the insured BI loss suffered by any one business as declared to the first defendant by the annual spreadsheet would be a separate loss to the insured BI loss suffered by any other such business, even if the underlying trigger was the same disease or other fortuity falling within the Disease Clause (here, always Covid-19) and even if the same government measures were involved in creating the business interruption (e.g. where, say, two separate Hungarian businesses, as declared by the spreadsheet, were shut down by the same Hungarian Covid-19 response measure);(3) for the avoidance of doubt – and without needing to decide whether on the facts any of the claimants might have suffered multiple insured Covid-19 BI losses – the Policy Loss Limit in the 2018 Global Policy was not a limit per insured or per insured property or per insured business. By way of easy counter-example to prove that point, if an insured hotel burnt down in the first week of the policy period, was quickly rebuilt so as to resume full operations at a total insured loss (PD and BI loss combined) of €100m, and burnt down again within the same policy period, the limit of liability in respect of the second fire (in the aggregate for PD and BI loss) would be the full €150m, not only €50m.
Question 1.1(2) – the Disease Clause sub-limit
[22]In addressing the Policy Loss Limit, and the need in that regard to understand what is an insured loss to which it would apply, I have already explained why I do not read the Disease Clause sub-limit of €10m as an annual aggregate limit of cover, or even an aggregate limit of Disease Clause BI cover per insured or per declared business. It was a limit per insured BI loss falling within the Disease Clause. To take an example similar in kind to the very unlucky hotel in paragraph 21(3) above, suppose an insured hotel shut down for three months early in the policy period as a result of public health measures such as those introduced in response to Covid-19, causing it BI loss of €6m, got back into full swing for the second half of the policy period, but was then struck down for some time by a contaminated public water supply later within that period. There would be a full Disease Clause sub-limit of €10m available for the BI loss claim in respect of that later calamity, not a reduced limit of €4m because of the (separate, and different) BI loss earlier in the policy period.
Question 1.1(3) – BI cover indemnity period
[23]Under the 2018 Global Policy, the Indemnity Period, a key term for loss calculation under Section B, was defined, as part of the primary Section B provisions, to commence upon the occurrence of the accidental loss or destruction of or damage to property used by the insured at insured premises, for the purpose of insured business, that those basic provisions required, since they only covered BI losses consequent upon such loss or destruction of, or damage to, property. The same is true of the related concept of the Maximum Indemnity Period, also a defined term.[24]Those definitions must yield to necessary amendment, as a matter of construction, in order for the extension of Section B to ‘pure’ BI losses under the Disease Clause to have meaningful content. In my view, that can only sensibly be achieved by reading the “occurrence of the DAMAGE” and the “commencement of the DAMAGE” in the definitions of Indemnity Period and Maximum Indemnity Period, respectively, as referring not to the property loss, destruction or damage required by the basic Section B cover, but to the commencement of the business interruption or interference resulting from a Disease Clause peril (i.e. an event falling within paragraphs (a) to (i) of the Clause).[25]The indemnity period under the 2018 Global Policy, therefore, in respect of Covid-19 BI losses falling within the Disease Clause, was the period from the commencement of the interruption of or interference with an insured business during which the results of the business in question were affected as a result of that interruption or interference, up to a maximum of 36 months.
Question 1.1(4) – General Clause 5
[26]It will be apparent from the foregoing that in my view General Clause 5 of the 2018 Global Policy gives rise to no substantial controversy. If on a proper construction of the annual spreadsheet listing the insured locations etc, a single business was declared comprising operations of more than one of the individual insured companies, then General Clause 5 ensured that the €10m limit per BI loss insured under the Disease Clause applied to that business, taken as a whole, and was not multiplied by the number of individual companies whose business it was.[27]That could mean that, as the claimants argued, General Clause 5 in fact had no impact at all on their Covid-19 BI loss claims, had they otherwise been good claims. However, a final decision as to that would require a detailed consideration of the spreadsheet with its 141 rows to determine how properly they would fall to be interpreted from the perspective of identifying the businesses declared to the insurance cover. An exercise of that kind was not attempted at the preliminary issues trial.
Question 1.3 – multiple insureds / locations etc
[28]It will also be apparent from the foregoing how far I can take, and how I would therefore answer, Question 1.3 within preliminary issue 1. To quote it in full, that Question asked (with internal numbering now added for my convenience):(1) How the Limits and maximum indemnity period apply to (a) multiple insureds and/or (b) multiple premises or locations and/or(2) whether the 2018 Global Master Policy contained any annual aggregate limit for all claims for loss resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business under the Disease Clause.[29]In my judgment, for the reasons given in the discussion above:(1) The 2018 Global Policy limits and maximum indemnity period operated per insured loss, and as regards Covid-19 BI losses covered under the Disease Clause, they therefore operated in the aggregate across (a) multiple insureds or (b) multiple premises or locations only if and to the extent that, properly construed, the annual spreadsheet declared as a single business the operations of multiple insureds or the undertaking(s) carried out at or from multiple premises or locations, respectively.(2) The 2018 Global Policy did not contain any annual aggregate limit for all claims for loss resulting from interruption of or interference with business under the Disease Clause.
Answers
[30]The Questions I have addressed above were, to set them out again in full, these: 1.1. [What is the] true construction under the 2018 Master Global Policy of:(1) the “Policy Loss Limit”;(2) the Disease Clause and any sub-limit;(3) the maximum indemnity period;(4) General Clause 5 (regarding the composite nature of the Policy). 1.3. How the Limits and maximum indemnity period apply to multiple insureds and/or multiple premises or locations and/or whether the 2018 Global Master Policy contained any annual aggregate limit for all claims for loss resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business under the Disease Clause.[31]I now answer them, for the reasons given above, as follows, and I consider it just and convenient to grant declarations accordingly (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above): Qu.1.1(1) The Policy Loss Limit of €150,000,000 in the 2018 Global Policy was a limit each and every insured loss, but in the aggregate across property damage and business interruption losses for each such loss. It was not an aggregate annual limit of cover. Qu.1.1(2) The Disease Clause sub-limit of €10,000,000 in the 2018 Global Policy was a limit each and every insured business interruption loss covered by that Clause. It was not an aggregate annual limit of cover. Qu.1.1(3) The indemnity period under the 2018 Global Policy applicable to business interruption losses covered by the Disease Clause was the period from the commencement of the interruption of or interference with an insured business falling within the Disease Clause during which the results of the business were affected as a result of that interruption or interference, up to a maximum of 36 months. Qu.1.1(4) General Clause 5 under the 2018 Global Policy had the effect, so far as material, that if, properly construed, the annual spreadsheet declared operations of more than one of the insured companies as a single business, then the Disease Clause sub-limit of €10,000,000 applied to a business interruption loss insured by that Clause suffered by that business, taken as a whole, and was not multiplied by the number of individual companies whose business it was, as declared. Qu.1.3 The 2018 Global Policy limits and maximum indemnity period operated per insured loss, and therefore as regards business interruption losses covered under the Disease Clause, they operated in the aggregate across(a) multiple insureds or(b) multiple premises or locations only if and to the extent that, properly construed, the annual spreadsheet declared as a single business the operations of multiple insureds or the undertaking(s) carried out at or from multiple premises or locations, respectively. The 2018 Global Policy did not contain any annual aggregate limit for all claims for loss resulting from interruption of or interference with business under the Disease Clause. Appendix – 2018 Global Policy Terms DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS / DIFFERENCE IN LIMITS This Policy is designated the master global insuring policy for the Insured and covers: 1). the difference in definitions, perils, conditions or coverages between any underlying/primary policy and this Policy. 2). the difference between the limit(s) of liability stated in any underlying/local primary policy and this Policy provided that: a) the coverage is provided by this Policy; b) the limit(s) of liability has been exhausted under the underlying/local primary policy, and c) the deductibles) applicable to such claim for loss or damage in the underlying/local primary policy has been applied. Any coverage provided by the underlying policy that is not provided in this Policy does not extend to this Policy. Without waiving any of the foregoing, if any Insurers affording other insurance to the Insured denies primary liability under its policy, the Insurers hereunder will respond under this Policy as though such other insurance were not available provided that they shall be subrogated to all rights of the Insured to such other insurance and the Insured shall do all things necessary to enforce such rights. MEMORANDUM This Master Policy covers the Insured’s locations in the United Kingdom and acts as a Difference in Conditions / Difference in Limits basis as respect the Insured’s location(s) in -all other territories agreed by the Insurer at terms and conditions to be determined. This Master Policy also acts as a Difference in Conditions / Difference in Limits basis as respects the Insured’s locations in the UK where such locations are insured elsewhere. From the 2018 Global Policy Schedule: THE INSURED: CP Holdings Limited and its subsidiary or associated companies as declared to and agreed by the Insurer BUSINESS: As declared to and agreed by the Insurer SECTIONS INSURED A Material Damage YESA-I Money Extension YESA-II Machinery Breakdown YESA-III Goods in Transit YESB Business Interruption YESC Great Britain Terrorism NO SECTION A - MATERIAL DAMAGE 34. THE PROPERTY INSURED. EUR 224,470,872 Czech Full Breakdown is held on file with Insurer EUR 195.393.976 Slovakia EUR 19,506.286 Romania EUR 484,926,000 Hungary GBP 221,392,165 United Kingdom TOTAL SPECIFICATION SUM INSURED As notified by the Insured and held on file with the Insurer 35. DEDUCTIBLE(S): Section A and Section B EUR 10,000 Each and Every Loss (other than Flood in Hungary and as shown below): 8/10/10a High Street, Billericay, Essex – GBP 1,000 Kew Gardens, Richmond Surrey – GBP 1,000 Section A and Section B Flood in Hungary EUR 10,000 Each and Every Loss all locations other than: Danubius Grand Hotel Margitsziget, Budapest Danubius Health Spa Resort Margitsziget Margitsziget, Budapest Where EUR 50,000 Each and Every Loss applies Policy Loss Limit €150,000,000 Each and Every Loss Property Damage and Business Interruption combined Flood Policy Loss Limit or Local Sum Insured whichever is the lesser Each and Every Loss Property Damage and Business Interruption combined, other than in Czech Republic €40,000,000 Each and Every Loss Property Damage and Business Interruption combined Sub-Limit(s) Additional metered water electricity or gas charges € 50,000 Capital Additions € 10,000,000 Construction All Risks € 500,000 Contract works € 1,000,000 Sub-Limit(s), continued Contractors interest € 1,000,000 Debris Removal € 7,500,000 European Union and Public Authorities Clause 20% of Sum Insured Or €5,000,000 whichever is the greater Inadvertent Omission(s) to insure € 10,000,000 Incompatibility of Computers Systems € 70,000 Property at Exhibitions € 25,000 Landscaping € 50,000 Loss reduction expenses € 100,000 Loss preparation costs € 50,000 Sprinkler up date costs, following loss 20% of Sum Insured Unspecified Sites € 100,000 SECTION B - BUSINESS INTERRUPTION 36. ITEMS / THE PREMISES EUR 95,529,048 Czech Republic Full Breakdown is held on file with Insurer EUR 119,061,753 Slovakia EUR 28,278,759 Romania EUR 366,291,000 Hungary GBP 118,681,361 United Kingdom TOTAL SPECIFICATION SUM INSURED As notified by the Insured and held on file with the Insurer 37. DEDUCTIBLE(S): Section A and Section B EUR 10,000 Each and Every Loss (other than Flood in Hungary and Czech, and as shown below:) 8/10/10a High Street, Billericay, Essex – GBP 1,000 Kew Gardens, Richmond Surrey – GBP 1,000 Section A and Section B Flood in Hungary EUR 10,000 Each and Every Loss all locations other than: Danubius Grand Hotel Margitsziget, Budapest Danubius Health Spa Resort Margitsziget Margitsziget, Budapest Where EUR 50,000 Each and Every Loss applies Section B Utilities: 12 Hours UK / 24Hrs all other Territories Denial of Access 6 Hours all Territories LIMIT(S) OF LIABILITY Policy Loss Limit €150,000,000 Each and Every Loss Property Damage and Business Interruption combined Section A and Section B Flood Other than Czech Policy Loss Limit or Local Sum Insured whichever is the lesser Each and Every Loss Property Damage and Business Interruption combined Sub-Limit(s) Contagious Diseases Food Poisoning and other health risks €10,000,000 Denial of Access €15,000,000 Loss of Attraction € 1,000,000 Tenants and Neighbours Liability Sum Insured Utilities € 5,000,000 Unspecified Suppliers and Customers € 2,000,000 MAXIMUM INDEMNITY PERIOD 36 Months SPECIFICATION – PROPERTY / ITEMS INSURED [Detailed specifications set out identifying what was insured by way of ‘Buildings’, ‘Contents’ and ‘Stock’] From the detailed 2018 Global Policy wording: SECTION AMATERIAL DAMAGE INSURANCEACCIDENTAL DAMAGE IN THE EVENT OF any of the Property Insured described in the Schedule being accidentally lost destroyed or damaged other than by an excluded cause the Insurer will pay to the Insured the value of the property at the time of the happening of its accidental loss or destruction or damage the amount of such accidental loss destruction or damage or at its option reinstate or replace such property or any part thereof PROVIDED THAT the liability of the Insurer in respect of any one loss or in the aggregate in any one period of insurance shall in no case exceed any limit of liability shown in the Schedule DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO SECTION A
This Policy is designated the master global insuring policy for the Insured and covers:
[1]The Word “DAMAGE” in capital letters, shall mean accidental loss or destruction of or damage to the Property Insured. … SECTION BBUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCEACCIDENTAL DAMAGE IN THE EVENT OF any building or other property or any part thereof used by the Insured for the purpose of the Business being accidentally lost destroyed or damaged other than by an excluded cause and the Business carried on by the Insured being in consequence thereof interrupted or interfered with the Insurer will pay to the Insured the amount of loss resulting from such interruption or interference in accordance with the provisions herein contained PROVIDED THAT at the time of the happening of the DAMAGE there shall be in force an insurance covering the interest of the Insured in the property at the Premises against such DAMAGE …[2]the liability of the Insurer in any one period of insurance shall in no case exceed any limit of liability shown in the Schedule DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO SECTION B
LIMIT(S) OF LIABILITY
[1]The word “DAMAGE” shall mean accidental loss or destruction of or damage to property used by the Insured at the Premises for the purpose of the Business.
GENERAL CLAUSES APPLICABLE TO THE POLICY
[2]The words “CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS” in capital letters, shall mean loss resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business carried on by the Insured in consequence of Damage. … THE INSURANCE PROVIDED BY SECTION B… The Insurance under this Section is limited to (a). Loss of Gross Revenue; and (b) Increase in Cost of Working (c) Additional increase in Cost of Working and the amount payable as indemnity hereunder shall be :- (a). In respect of Loss of Gross Revenue the amount by which the Gross Revenue shall during the Indemnity Period fall short of the Standard Gross Revenue in consequence of the DAMAGE (b). In respect of Increase in Cost of Working the additional expenses necessarily and reasonably incurred during the Indemnity Period in consequence of any interruption or interference with the business in consequence of the DAMAGE (c). In respect of Additional increase in Cost of Working, the amount of the additional expenditure (in excess of the amount payable under items (a) and (b) above necessarily and reasonably incurred by the Insured during the Indemnity Period in consequence of the Incident for the sole purpose of avoiding or diminishing a reduction in Turnover or resuming or maintaining normal business. Less any sum saved in respect of such of the charges and expenses of the business payable out of Gross Revenue as may cease or be reduced in consequence of the DAMAGE In adjusting any loss, account shall be taken, and equitable allowance made, if any reduction in Turnover due to the DAMAGE is postponed by reason of the Turnover being temporarily maintained from accumulated stocks of finished goods DEFINITIONS Indemnity Period: The period beginning with the occurrence of the DAMAGE and ending not later than the Maximum Indemnity Period thereafter during which the results of the Business shall be affected in consequence thereof. Maximum Indemnity Period: The period beginning at the commencement of the DAMAGE and ending no later than the number of months shown in the Schedule during which the Insured shall suffer CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS Gross Revenue: The money paid or payable to the Insured for goods sold and delivered or services rendered in the course of the Business Standard Gross Revenue: The Gross Revenue during the period in the twelve months immediately before the date of the occurrence of the DAMAGE which corresponds with the Indemnity Period to which such adjustments shall be made as may be necessary to provide for the trend of the Business either before or after the DAMAGE or which would have affected the Business had the DAMAGE not occurred so that the figures thus adjusted shall represent as nearly as may be practicable the results which but for the DAMAGE would have been obtained during the relative period after the DAMAGE Turnover: The money paid or payable to the Insured for goods sold and delivered or services rendered in the course of the Business SUPPLEMENTARY CLAUSES APPLICABLE TO SECTION B …[4]DEPARTMENTAL CLAUSE If the Business be conducted in departments the independent trading results of which are ascertainable, the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of the item on gross revenue shall apply separately to each department affected by the DAMAGE. …[8]CONTAGIOUS DISEASES, FOOD POISONING AND OTHER HEALTH RISKS This Section extends to cover loss resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business in consequence of: (a). contagious or infectious or notifiable illness or disease or the imposition of quarantine restrictions; (b). Ptomaine or food or drink poisoning or any other food related illness; (c). breach of any regulations applying to safety food safety hygiene or fire; (d). defective sanitary arrangements; (e). death murder rape assault or suicide; (f). the impotability of the public drinking water supply; (g). accidental or malicious contamination at the premises of food or drink or food or drink storage systems air conditioning heating or ventilation systems or water or sanitary systems; (h). the recall of food or drink which is contaminated or which is deemed unfit for human consumption; (i). any other accidental occurrence which shall give rise to adverse publicity and the indemnity provided by this Section is extended to include costs incurred in: (j). investigating and rectifying any of the above risks (k). any programme of crisis management or public relations in connection with such risks. GENERAL CLAUSES APPLICABLE TO THE POLICY …[2]HOURS CLAUSE Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary loss occurrence shall mean all physical loss or damage arising out of and directly occasioned by one insured event. However, if the following events are insured by the policy …, the duration and extent of loss occurrence shall be limited to: Earth Movement - … All earth movement that occurs within any seventy two (72) hour period will constitute a single occurrence. The expiration of this Policy will not reduce the seventy two (72) hour period Volcanic Action:- [Equivalent provision, but based on 168 hour periods] Flood [Equivalent provision, based on 72 hour periods] The Insured may choose the date and time when any such 72/168 hour period of consecutive hours commences and if any catastrophe is of greater duration than the above periods, the Insured may divide that catastrophe into two or more “loss occurrences”, provided no two periods overlap and provided no period commences earlier than the date and time of the happening of the first recorded individual loss to the Insured in that catastrophe. …[5]COMPOSITE INSUREDS This Policy shall apply separately to each of the Insureds in the same manner and to the same extent as if a separate policy had been issued to each except that such obligation shall not serve to increase the Limits of Liability of the Insurer as provided for in the Schedule.