i'm going to take a look at the recent high court case involving a number of publicans who brought
a high court case against fbd insurance company for losses arising from being closed essentially
due to the covert 19 pandemic and republicans in question which to bring a claim against or
off their insurance policy on the basis that they were forced to close because of a pandemic
the insurance company wouldn't pay out and the high court had to decide there is
five lessons that i see from the high court decision the first one is that the fbd argued that
the policy provided for a 25 mile limit in other words that the cases the closure had to arise
from the pandemic within 25 miles of the pub however and if they couldn't prove this well then
they couldn't claim off the policy the high court held that even though they couldn't prove
that all of the closures of the pubs arose from cases within the 25 mile radius of the pub it was
enough that some cases occurred within 25 miles and yes some cases did occur outside the 25 miles
nevertheless they were entitled to uh be paid out and to claim on the policy and succeed
the second lesson to be taken from the case is that the coveted pandemic according to fbd
they argued that this was not an event but a series of events or happenings and the
insurance policy only covered an event high court and did not accept this argument either
they decided that the event that's covered in the policy could be a state of affairs
such as a pandemic thirdly there's a question of well there's a thing called a but for test
fbd we're arguing that the republicans couldn't be paid out because if you applied
the but for test they couldn't prove that the closure arose because of the pandemic per se
in other words in order to pass the but foretest they must prove that the only reason
for the closure was the pandemic and the fpd were arguing that other issues
brought about the closure for example government policy government decisions and so on
the high court decided that applying an overly technical but for test would basically lead to
a manifest or could lead to a manifest injustice in which case the high court decided that
if there was other causes as well of the closure then that was fine that wasn't going to disbar
or disentitled republicans from a successful claim so the boot for test was modified
to a certain extent the fourth thing that we can learn from this high court case is that
the publicans cannot maintain maintain a claim for losses arising from the continuing effects
of the pandemic when they are permitted to reopen unless they can show that the losses
arose as a result or a consequence of the imposed closure so that is a situation that is going to
unfold and develop and remains to be seen in other words if the republicans are allowed
to open in a month's time or two months time or three months time will they be allowed to claim
again for losses arising from the pandemic and basically the high court says they're going to
look at very very closely it doesn't necessarily follow and they will have to show that the cause
of the losses is as a consequence of the pandemic the fifth lesson to be learned from this case
is that each of these cases each of these policies will stand or fall on its own particular policies
on its own particular insurance policies terms and conditions and there would be some difference
between the different policies the different terms and conditions from the various insurance
companies and therefore it doesn't necessarily follow even though there will be more cases
probably it doesn't necessarily follow that all publicans cases against all insurance companies
will succeed it will depend on the particular wording of the insurance policy in question i hope
you find this video useful if you do it appreciate if you give it the thumbs up down below and you
may be interested in subscribing to my youtube channel if you are hit the subscribe button
and hit the bell icon and you'll be notified every time i publish a new video thanks a lot