- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bellini (N/E) Ltd v Brit UW Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns the interpretation of clause 8.2.6 of a licensed premises insurance policy issued by Company A (the insurer) to Company B (the insured), the proprietor of a restaurant in The City. The insured claimed business interruption losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic under the policy. Clause 8.2.6, titled "Murder, suicide or disease," purported to extend cover for business interruption caused by certain specified perils, but only "caused by damage," defined as physical loss, damage, or destruction. The deputy judge of the High Court (the judge) held at a preliminary issue trial that clause 8.2.6 provided no cover absent physical damage. The insured appealed this decision.
The dispute centered on whether the references in clause 8.2.6 to "damage" meant that physical damage was a necessary prerequisite for cover, or whether these references should be disregarded to allow cover for non-damage business interruption losses caused by COVID-19. The insured argued the clause should be read as providing cover without requiring physical damage, while the insurer contended that the policy was a standard business interruption policy providing cover only where physical damage occurred, and that non-damage cover was available but not purchased.
The judge delivered her judgment after a one-day hearing, concluding that the clause must be read in context and that the references to damage could not be ignored. The appeal challenges this interpretation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether clause 8.2.6 of the insurance policy provides cover for business interruption losses in the absence of physical damage as defined by the policy.
- Whether the references to "damage" in clause 8.2.6 should be disregarded or reinterpreted to provide non-damage business interruption cover.
- Whether the policy language contains a clear mistake that justifies correction by construction under established legal principles.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The words "caused by damage, as defined by clause 8.1" and "in consequence of the damage" in clause 8.2.6 should be disregarded or read as if deleted to give effect to the intended cover for business interruption caused by disease without requiring physical damage.
- The clause is absurd as written because "damage" is not defined in clause 8.1 and the requirement for physical damage makes no sense in the context of disease-related business interruption.
- The approach to interpretation in the Divisional Court and Supreme Court decisions on similar clauses supports reading the clause as providing non-damage cover.
- Even if multiple corrections are possible, the court should choose the interpretation that accords with the parties’ obvious intention to provide non-damage cover.
- The reasonable policyholder, particularly an SME, would understand the clause as providing cover for business interruption caused by the specified perils, including disease, without the need for physical damage.
Respondent's Arguments
- The policy is a standard business interruption policy providing cover only where there is physical damage to property; non-damage cover was available but not purchased.
- The references to "damage" in clause 8.2.6 are consistent with the rest of clause 8.2, which is a series of cover extensions all contingent on physical damage.
- The phrase "damage, defined in clause 8.1" is not a mistake; clause 8.1 defines the scope of business interruption cover and the reference is to the damage-based cover extended by clause 8.2.
- Correction by construction is only permissible where there is a clear mistake on the face of the instrument and a clear correction; neither condition is met here.
- It does not matter that clause 8.2.6 provides limited cover or that it is hard to imagine practical examples; the parties must be held to their bargain as objectively expressed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| East v. Pantiles (Plant Hire) Ltd (1982) 2 EGLR 111 | Principles governing correction of mistakes by construction require a clear mistake on the face of the instrument and a clear correction. | The court held that no clear mistake existed in the policy language, so correction by construction was not applicable. |
| Wood v. Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 | Contractual interpretation requires objective assessment of the language in context, balancing textualism and contextualism. | The court applied this approach to confirm the policy should be read as a whole, supporting the interpretation that physical damage was required. |
| Chartbrook Limited v. Persimmon Homes Limited [2009] 1 AC 1101 | Clarifies principles of correction of mistakes by construction and the importance of context in interpretation. | Used to reinforce that correction by construction is limited and must be based on clear evidence of mistake. |
| Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 | Where language has more than one meaning, courts may prefer the meaning consistent with business common sense. | The court found the natural meaning requiring physical damage was consistent with business common sense in this context. |
| Arnold v. Britton [2015] UKSC 36 | Emphasizes the primacy of the natural and ordinary meaning of contractual language, assessed objectively. | The court applied this principle to reject the insured’s attempt to rewrite the clause contrary to its clear language. |
| Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch Insurance UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm); [2021] UKSC 1 | Interpretation of non-damage disease clauses in insurance policies. | The court distinguished this case from those decisions, noting the policy here did not provide non-damage cover. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by examining the language of clause 8.2.6 in the context of the entire policy, particularly clause 8 as a whole. Clause 8.2 is described as a "damage sandwich," containing extensions of business interruption cover that all hinge on physical damage to property. Clause 8.2.6 expressly references "damage, as defined in clause 8.1," which itself defines business interruption cover contingent on physical damage occurring at the insured premises during the policy period.
The court rejected the insured's argument that the references to "damage" should be ignored or rewritten to provide non-damage cover. It found no ambiguity or inconsistency in the clause's language and no clear mistake justifying correction by construction under the test from East v. Pantiles. The insured’s proposed reading would require rewriting the clause, which is impermissible absent a clear clerical or grammatical error.
The court further explained that the policy must be interpreted as it existed at inception (October 2019), before the COVID-19 pandemic was known. The fact that clause 8.2.6 provided limited additional cover for disease-related business interruption was not absurd in the context of a policy primarily designed to cover physical damage.
The court acknowledged the insured’s frustration that the policy did not provide the cover it sought but emphasized that the objective meaning of the policy language must prevail. The parties were represented by expert intermediaries and had access to advice, reinforcing that the policy language reflected their bargain.
Accordingly, the court concluded that clause 8.2.6 does not provide cover for business interruption losses absent physical damage as defined in the policy.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL.
The holding confirms that clause 8.2.6 of the insurance policy requires physical damage to property as a prerequisite for business interruption cover under that clause. The references to "damage" cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted to provide non-damage cover for losses caused by disease such as COVID-19. This decision upholds the objective interpretation of insurance contracts based on their natural and ordinary language in context, without rewriting the contract absent clear mistakes.
The direct effect is that the insured is not entitled to recover business interruption losses under clause 8.2.6 for COVID-19 related closures absent physical damage. The decision does not set new precedent but applies established principles of contractual interpretation and correction of mistakes by construction.
Alert