We have previously written about the UK government’s plan to set up designated settings for persons leaving hospital who require a care home but have a diagnosis of COVID-19. This was originally outlined in the Adult Social Care Winter plan released in November, and each local authority was required to put in place plans to set up such facilities. Part of the set up problems was the willingness of the insurance market to provide cover for these settings.
In a written statement this week (18 January 2021), the Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi has confirmed provision of a temporary government backed indemnity to provide cover for clinical negligence, EL and PL cover in the circumstances where a care provider cannot secure sufficient cover, or cover at all via the commercial insurance market. The scheme is intended to run only until the end of March 2021 and, as such, has the feeling of a ‘stop gap’ solution.
This is a very brief overview of very recent developments and is most definitely not an analysis of the arguments raised earlier this month before the Supreme Court, other than by way of a reminder that:
- the competing arguments of the parties – the FCA and the interested insurers – focus on the question of whether or not the range of representative business interruption (BI) wordings provide indemnity for operating losses sustained by policyholders during the first ‘lockdown’ of 2020, and
- the decision at first instance examined this by grouping the relevant clauses into three broad types – disease clauses, prevention of access clauses and hybrid clauses – interpreting each in its context, dealing with causation, prevalence of Covid-19, counterfactuals and with the effect on claims adjustment of so-called ‘trends’ clauses.
The ‘consequentials’ hearing in the business interruption test case took place on Friday 2 October. The FCA’s website will be updated in due course with the transcript of the proceedings and the final order required to give effect to the judgment given in mid-September. Pending that, the executive summary (as it were) is that the court agreed to grant leapfrog certificates to all parties and interveners to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.