Greggs wins high-profile High Court Covid insurance case
The Newcastle headquartered firm Greggs has won an initial High Court ruling in a £150m Covid related case against the insurance company, Zurich.
Greggs’ claim was over its business interruption insurance with Zurich in which the firm claims it is due monetary compensation for interruption during the Covid pandemic.
Greggs £150mn claim
Greggs lodged its claim in the High Court for the sum of £150mn which it claims it is owed as compensation for when its estate of over 2,000 outlets stores was forced to close during Government mandated lockdowns.
Lawyers acting for Greggs, a British company employing around 25,000 staff across its 2,000 plus shops and other outlets, told the court that every single outlet suffered some interruption or interference with trading during the government imposed lockdowns.
Zurich’s defence
Zurich on the other hand, claimed that Greggs could only claim for one single occurrence of business interruption compensation under its policy, a position that if upheld would limit Gregg’s claim to £2.5mn.
Greggs’ lawyers counter argued that the company was entitled to a separate limit of £2.5m each time the UK and the national devolved Governments announced new Covid restrictions.
The judgement
Mr Justice Butcher has now handed down his judgement in which he says:
“In substantial measure I have accepted what was put forward at the hearing as Greggs’ primary case, based on the different Governmental announcements/regulations.”
Impact on Greggs’ profits
Following the first lockdown commencing March 2021, the fast food chain now famously providing its customers with vegan sausage rolls, posted its first ever full-year losses since the company came to be quoted on the stock market in 1984. The company posted a £13.7m pre-tax loss, compared to a profit pre-pandemic in 2019.
The company weathered the storm better than most business in the sector and its losses were not as big as the analysts had forecast, but still resulted in the directors failing to approve a dividend payment to stockholders until profits returned. Profits fell from record highs of over £1bn pre-pandemic in 2019 by around 30 percent.
The judge in the High Court case ruled that there had been a “single occurrence” at the first lockdown from March 2020 to May 2020, followed by separate occurrences in each jurisdiction in the UK as the restrictions were changed over the rest of the year. He also said that there were other separate occurrences within each jurisdiction where the local lockdowns and other restrictions had been imposed.
The lawyers’ response
A spokesperson for lawyers Charles Russell Speechlys, the firm acting for Greggs in the landmark BI trial, said:
“today’s judgment substantially accepts Greggs’ primary case for payment of business interruption and related losses caused by Covid-19 and its consequences.”
Insurers’ initial argument that there was only one limit available for Covd BI losses, entitled Greggs to only one limit of £2.5 million for all of its Covid BI losses had been “firmly rejected”, the firm said.
For its part, Greggs argued that it was entitled to access a separate limit of £2.5 million each time the Westminster and devolved Governments in the UK adopted a major Covid restriction measure affecting its business. This meant that there were multiple such restrictions and multiple £2.5 million limits.
The Lawyers Charles Russell Speechlys said the judge accepted the “main thrust” of Greggs’ primary case and ruled that there was a single occurrence at the outset (from March 2020 until May 2020).
This was followed by separate occurrences in each jurisdiction within the UK as the level of major restrictions in place was adjusted from time to time over the course of 2020 and also separate occurrences within each jurisdiction where there were local lockdowns or other restrictions.
The judge also held that those regulations which merely continued existing restrictions or made small changes did not provide additional £2.5 million limits.
The case has winder implications
“This outcome vindicates Greggs commencing proceedings and has wider implications for all businesses that purchased the Resilience Insurance policies. Insurers’ argument that there was only one limit available for COVID business interruption losses has been firmly rejected,” said Charles Russell Speechlys’ partner, Manoj Vaghela.
Subject to appeal, the firm said that the case of ‘Greggs plc v Zurich Insurance plc’ will now proceed to phase two, in which insurers and Greggs will calculate the value of the business interruption loss recoverable under the insurance policy.
The High Court also ruled on business interruption cases brought by The Stonegate Pub Company Ltd vs MS Amlin, Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe and Zurich, plus Various Eateries vs. Allianz Insurance Plc, with varying degrees of success.
View Full Article: Greggs wins high-profile High Court Covid insurance case
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,861)
Archives
- November 2024 (52)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Why Do You Really Want to Invest in Property?
- Demand for accessible rental homes surges – LRG
- The landlord exodus is fuelling a rental crisis
- Landlords enjoy booming yields – Paragon
- Landlords: Get Your Properties Sold Fast and Cash in the Bank before the New Year!