Introduction
On January 15, 2021, the UK s Supreme Court (UKSC) rendered
its much-awaited decision on business interruption (BI) coverage
for COVID-19 (the Test Case ). See our earlier postings
for a review of the lower court decision
2 BI coverage is typically offered as
additional insurance on a property insurance policy. BI coverage is
designed to protect the insured from lost revenue and increased
business expenses that might result from a covered property loss
policy (such events being described as insured
perils ). However, many policies also include extensions which provide coverage even where there may
be no damage to, or loss of, property. Examples include
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
In August 2020, we discussed a pending test case that considered whether insurers could deny liability for small business insurance claims amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found in favour of small businesses, which has resulted in a large number of businesses making claims pursuant to their policies.
These businesses may still find it difficult to make a successful claim however, and ClarkeKann Lawyers has recently been retained to act for a business involved in a dispute with its insurer.
In this article, we consider the decision of the recent test case, and how it will impact small businesses and insurers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On December 8, 2020, how people start lawsuits over falling on
private property changed dramatically in Ontario.
1
In a nutshell, if you fall on someone else s property and
are injured, you have 60 days from the date you fell to write to
that other person or business and tell them that you intend to make
a claim. In law, we call that Notice .
Your Notice to the property owner or Occupier of the
property must include some key information. The Notice must have
the date, time, and location of the fall. The Notice must be either
Yes.
Yes.
What if the renter did all that and then let their spouse use
the car, without telling the car rental company, and the spouse
caused an accident?
Yes.
Same answer. Yes.
In the Mamo v. Morgan case, all of these things came up. And all
of them were decided in favour of the rental car company s
insurer having to pay for the actions of the renter.
That is referred to as vicarious liability : the
rental car company did not directly do anything that caused the car
accident, but they permitted the renter to rent the car, and
therefore became responsible for the renter s negligence.
In
Giles v State of Queensland [2020] QDC 332, the District Court of Queensland dismissed an injured worker s claim on the basis the State was not negligent in its management and welfare checking during his attendance at a catastrophic fire.
Facts
The plaintiff, Peter Giles, had been employed as a firefighter with the Queensland Fire and Rescue Services (
QFRS) for 27 years.
In August 2011, Mr Giles was working as a pump operator to help fight a house fire in Slacks Creek where, tragically, many lives were lost.
QFRS made a deliberate decision that night to not rotate workers on site, with a view to limiting the number of personnel exposed to the catastrophic scene.