Insurers lose COVID-19 “business interruption” test case

Blog Layout

Insurers lose COVID-19 “business interruption” test case

Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants

Insurers lose COVID-19 "business interruption" test case

Last week, a unanimous judgment from the New South Wales Court of Appeal, constituted by five judges, was handed down which ruled that certain insurance policyholders could be entitled to claim for COVID-19 related "business interruption" losses, when their business was forced to close due to the coronavirus pandemic.

At the outset, it is critical to note that this is the first of only a few Insurance Council of Australia test cases, and while the Insurers do not have an automatic right to appeal the case decision, they do have until mid-December 2020 to decide whether they believe they have grounds to apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal the decision.

Thus, there is a chance this decision can be challenged and potentially be overturned.

What was the case about exactly?

This specific test case concerned insurance policyholders who held cover for "business interruption" losses arising from an outbreak of infectious disease with a 20km radius of the insured premises, but which excluded " diseases declared to be quarantinable diseases under the Quarantine Act 1908 and subsequent amendments ".

The insurance policies in the test case mistakenly referred to the Quarantine Act 1908 , which was repealed in 2015, and replaced with the Biosecurity Act 2015.

The insurers have claimed this was clearly an error, and the intention of the policy was obviously to exclude a pandemic under any future legislation. They argue the phrase "subsequent amendments" referred to any future legislation, not just amendments to the specific Quarantine Act 1908.

But the NSW court of appeal disagrees, deciding that the policy in question only protected insurers under the Quarantine Act 1908 , and the phrase " and subsequent amendments " referred to amendments to that act only.

What does this mean for other businesses impacted by COVID 19 related business interruptions?

This does not mean that all claims for COVID-19 related "business interruption" losses must now be paid. However, it does mean that businesses holding insurance policies which were not updated when the Quarantine Act was repealed and replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015 may have similar grounds to pursue a claim.

Furthermore, any other businesses (not party to this test case) would still need to prove that they had in fact experienced a COVID-19 outbreak, then they would also need to prove they suffered financial loss, and they suffered loss "as a result of" the COVID-19 outbreak.

While we are drawing your attention to this recent legal development which concerns the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, this Tax Alert does not constitute advice, and if this topic is relevant to your business we recommend you seek your own legal advice.

Please do not hesitate to contact your Lowe Lippmann Relationship Partner if you wish to discuss any of these matters further.

< Older Post Newer Post >

Tax Alert - Will credit card surcharges be banned?

February 19, 2025

Will credit card surcharges be banned? If credit card surcharges are banned in other countries, why not Australia? This alert looks at the surcharge debate and the payment system complexity that has brought us to this point. In the United Kingdom, consumer credit and debit card surcharges have been banned since 2018. In Europe, all except American Express and Diners Club consumer surcharges are banned. And in Australia, there is a push to follow suit. But is the issue as simple as it seems?

Tax Alert - Is there a problem paying your super when you die?

February 17, 2025

Is there a problem paying your super when you die? The Government has announced its intention to introduce mandatory standards for large superannuation funds to, amongst other things, deliver timely and compassionate handling of death benefits. Do we have a problem with paying out super when a member dies? The value of superannuation in Australia is now around $4.1 trillion. When you die, your super does not automatically form part of your estate but instead, is paid to your eligible beneficiaries by the fund trustee according to the fund rules, superannuation law, and any death benefit nomination you made. Complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority ( AFCA ) about the handling of death benefits surged sevenfold between 2021 and 2023. The critical issue was delays in payments. While most super death benefits are paid within 3 months, for others it can take well over a year. The super laws do not specify a time period only that super needs to be paid to beneficiaries “as soon as practicable” after the death of the member.

Tax Alert - Why the ATO is targeting babyboomer wealth

February 13, 2025

Why the ATO is targeting babyboomer wealth “Succession planning, and the tax risks associated with it, is our number one focus in 2025. In recent years we’ve observed an increase in reorganisations that appear to be connected to succession planning.” ATO Private Wealth Deputy Commissioner Louise Clarke The Australian Taxation Office ( ATO ) thinks that wealthy babyboomer Australians, particularly those with successful family-controlled businesses, are planning and structuring to dispose of assets in a way in which the tax outcomes might not be in accord with the ATO’s expectations. If you are within the ATO’s Top 500 (Australia's largest and wealthiest private groups) or Next 5,000 (Australian residents who, together with their associates, control a net wealth of over $50 million) programs, expect the ATO to be paying close attention to how money flows through the entities you control. A critical issue for many business owners is how to effectively (and compliantly) benefit from a successful business. In many cases, the owners have spent years building the business and the business has become not only a substantial asset, but a lucrative source of income either through salary and wages, dividends, or through the sale of shares or assets. Generally, under tax law, you can legitimately structure assets if there is a good reason to do so - like for asset protection, but if you tip across the line and the only viable reason for a structure is to reduce tax, then you risk the ATO taking a very close look at your operations or worse, denying any tax benefits under the general anti-avoidance rules in Part IVA of the tax rules, designed to combat “blatant, artificial or contrived” tax avoidance activities. “We’re seeing that succession planning behaviour is primarily done by group heads who are approaching retirement. They typically own groups that family members are a part of, and wealth is transferred to the next generation to keep it within the family (via trusts and other means),” ATO Private Wealth Deputy Commissioner Louise Clarke said in a recent update.