Legal updates and opinions
News / News
COVID-19 and business interruption insurance: is your business covered?
by Sarah Moerane, Director
Following the declaration of a national state of disaster on 15 March 2020, and the subsequent lockdown imposed by the President from 26 March 2020, businesses have been forced to close their doors, and are contemplating whether they will survive the coronavirus outbreak, and the consequent measures taken by the government to curb the spread of the virus. The phased approach to lifting restrictions announced by the President means that the operations of many businesses, especially those which are not designated as level 5, 4 or 3, will continue to be negatively impacted by the forced closures.
Many businesses have property insurance in terms of which the business is covered for physical damage to its commercial property arising from a defined event such as fire or flood. On its own, property insurance ordinarily does not cover indirect losses. Thus, most commercial property insurance policies provide coverage for business income loss by adding an endorsement to the insured’s property policy. Business interruption insurance is designed to compensate the business for the financial impact of an insured interruption or interference.
An important consideration for business entities during this time is whether their businesses are covered for economic loss occasioned by the imposition of the national lockdown in terms of their business interruption insurance policies. Generally, an insured’s right to claim under a business interruption policy is triggered by physical damage arising from an event, such as fire or flood, indemnified under another section of the policy. In other words, there must be a link between the physical damage (caused by fire, flood, or some other natural disaster) and the consequential loss of revenue. The physical damage, rather than the insured’s own commercial decision or some other external event (such as the imposition of a national lockdown), must have caused the business interruption loss. The intention of business interruption insurance is to restore the business to the same financial position as it would have been in, if the insured loss had not occurred.
Although there have been unfortunate criminal activity reports regarding damage to property, in most instances, it is unlikely that the disruptions caused by the spread of the coronavirus will result in physical damage to property. Thus, many businesses may find themselves unable to rely on their insurance policies to help them weather the purely financial impact of the COVID-19 storm. Furthermore, as a result of previous viral outbreaks, such as the SARS and Ebola outbreaks of 2003 and 2014respectively, many business interruption policies specifically exclude loss caused by a pandemic.
Businesses must however take note that not all business interruption coverage requires physical damage to property. Some policies only require loss caused by an insured peril or, in the case of all-risk policies, a non-excluded peril. Such policies may very well cover income loss and business interruption resulting from closure of the business as result of pandemics and acts of state, for example, the imposition of the national lockdown. Additionally, some insurance policies may include extension clauses, which expressly provide cover for loss stemming from infectious and contagious diseases. However, even in these circumstances it is important to note that cover may be subject to certain limits outlined in the policy. Businesses are encouraged to carefully consider the wording of their policies in order to determine the extent of coverage available to them.
Latest News
Information Exchange and Collusion: Revised (and Trimmed) Draft Guidelines
by Rudolph Raath, Director and Mmamoloko Buthane, Candidate Attorney On 23 September 2022 the Competition Commission of South Africa (Commission) [...]
A reminder to employers: Duties in relation to recovering funds misappropriated by employees
by Jacques Van Wyk, Director, Nasheetah Smith, Senior Associate, and Danelle Plaatjies, Candidate Attorney When employees are found guilty of [...]
Reinstatement as a primary remedy
By Jacques Van Wyk, Director, Michiel Heyns, Senior Associate and, Kelly Sease, Candidate Attorney Summary This case reiterated the principle [...]
Shell judgment underscores need for clarity in public consultation
by Thomas Karberg, Associate. Reviewed by Athi Jara, Director On 1 September 2022, the Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge [...]
The meaning of ‘company’ and its implications for section 75 of the Companies Act
by Cari Cole-Morgan, Director, Julian van Niekerk, Director and Kiera Bracher, Candidate Attorney The meaning of 'company' It now appears [...]
Loadshedding – what should employers know?
by Jacques Van Wyk, Director, Michiel Heyns, Senior Associate and Danelle Plaatjies, Candidate Attorney The recent announcement of the resumption [...]
