Find out about how we obtained legal clarity on business interruption (BI) insurance during the coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.
The calculator is no longer operative as the reporting function utilised publicly available third-party data that has now been decommissioned.
Insurers are reminded of their obligation to treat customers fairly and provide reasonable guidance to policyholders throughout the claims journey. When insurers are assessing claims that require evidence of a case of Covid-19 occurring in the relevant policy area they should ensure that they consider all available data or information, including publicly available data or the firm’s own internal data.
As the calculator is no longer available policyholders can continue to seek to evidence their claims using any relevant data or information available to them. This may include using any public data that remains available, for example, data referred to in our former Finalised Guidance published in March 2021.
Following the coronavirus pandemic, which led to widespread disruption and business closures resulting in substantial financial loss. Many customers made claims for these losses under their BI insurance policies. There has been widespread concern about the lack of clarity and certainty for some customers making these claims, and the basis on which some firms are making decisions in relation to claims.
The issues surrounding BI policies are complex and it was recognised that they had the potential to create ongoing uncertainty for both customers and firms. The FCA accordingly sought clarification from the High Court as part of a test case, aimed at resolving the contractual uncertainty around the validity of many BI claims. The FCA advanced arguments on behalf of policyholders in the public interest. The test case was based on a representative sample of policy wordings. The High Court’s decision on the test case was subject to a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on 15 January 2021 substantially allowing the FCA’s appeals and dismissing the insurers’ appeals. This means that many thousands of policyholders who have cover should now have their claims for coronavirus -related business interruption losses paid.
The judgment from the Supreme Court and High Court provide policyholders and insurers with clarity about whether customers have cover and can make a valid claim and the amount due to policyholders.
On 15 January 2021, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the issues on appeal from the High Court. Its judgment relates to the High Court’s interpretation of common clauses in 13 out of the 21 business interruption policies in the representative sample. The judgment also considers whether the prevalence of coronavirus in or near the business was the effective ‘cause’ of losses.
The Supreme Court judgment is complex, runs to 112 pages and deals with many issues. A summary of the key points is below. Our legal team at Herbert Smith Freehills have published a bulletin summarising the judgment on their website, which may be referred to for further detail.
On 13 July 2021 the Supreme Court ordered that the High Court declarations be varied as set out in the Annex to the Order. The declarations record the outcome of the judgments in the test case and declare whether the policies in the representative sample potentially cover business interruption losses arising from the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and in what circumstances. It nevertheless remains important to read them alongside the judgment, which provides the Court’s reasoning and explanation that helps in understanding and applying the declarations. This table highlights the most relevant declarations by policy type.
The FCA argued for policyholders that the ‘disease’ and ‘prevention of access’ clauses in the representative sample of 21 policy types provide cover in the circumstances of the coronavirus ( Covid -19) pandemic, and that the trigger for cover caused policyholders’ losses.
The High Court’s judgment last September said that most of the disease clauses and certain prevention of access clauses (12 policy types from the sample of 21, issued by six insurers) provide cover and that the pandemic and the Government and public response caused the business interruption losses. The six insurers appealed those conclusions for 11 of the policy types, but the Supreme Court has dismissed those appeals, for different reasons from those of the High Court.
On the FCA’s appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that cover may be available for partial closure of premises (as well as full closure) and for mandatory closure orders that were not legally binding; that valid claims should not be reduced because the loss would have resulted in any event from the pandemic; and that two additional policy types from insurer QBE provide cover. This will mean that more policyholders will have valid claims and some pay-outs will be higher.
The judgment is legally binding on the eight insurers that agreed to be parties to the test case. Those insurers are:
The judgment also provides authoritative guidance for the interpretation of similar policy wordings and claims. It can be taken into account in other court cases, including in Scotland and Northern Ireland, by the Financial Ombudsman and by the FCA in looking at whether insurers are handling claims fairly. The judgment does not determine how much is payable under individual policies, but provides the basis for doing so.
The High Court handed down its judgment on 15 September 2020. Large parts of the High Court’s judgment (and the associated declarations) are superseded by the judgment of the Supreme Court. Previously, we said that certain parts of the High Court’s judgment were not appealed and therefore had a status similar to that of the Supreme Court’s judgment as described above. However, the High Court’s recent decision in Corbin and King v Axa provides further important guidance which, to some extent, supersedes the initial High Court ruling in the test case. Find out more about this decision.
We stopped providing regular updates to the guidance and statements for policyholders that we published following the test case (see list below) on 16 August 2021. This means that they may not fully reflect the current law. There are other resources which you can use to see if there have been recent rulings which might affect your claim. The Commercial Court has information on Covid-19 business interruption insurance cases. If policyholders want to look up a particular judgment themselves they can be found at the British and Irish Legal Information Institute.
Many solicitors firms also provide updates on recent cases; for example, our legal team during the test case, Herbert Smith Freehills, provide updates on significant cases though the timing may vary. Some barrister chambers also provide updates on their websites or blogs, particularly if their barristers are instructed on the case.
When new court rulings are published, firms will need to consider carefully how the ruling may impact the interpretation of their policies, and their claims and complaints handling, considering their obligations to their customers.
Where it is identified that a new court ruling has a possible wider beneficial impact for customers, we expect firms to provide either:
Where it has been determined that a new court ruling has no wider beneficial impact, we would expect firms to explain to their customers why it was considered that there was no wider beneficial impact to other potentially similarly impacted, or other potentially affected, customers.
Where firms decide not to reopen claims – for example, because they consider they would have reached the same outcome even applying the reasoning in the new ruling – we expect firms, in appropriate circumstances, to be open and transparent about their reasons for doing so. Customers should be given a chance to consider those decisions and complain if they disagree with them.
We published the following guidance and statements for policyholders:
We have published the Supreme Court Order varying the High Court declarations made in the test case. The declarations record the outcome of the judgments in the test case and declare whether the policies in the representative sample potentially cover business interruption losses arising from the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and in what circumstances. It nevertheless remains important to read them alongside the judgment, which provides the Court’s reasoning and explanation that helps in understanding and applying the declarations.
We have also published a table highlighting the most relevant declarations by policy type for policyholders. Policyholders are encouraged to speak to their insurance intermediaries and/or their advisers in the first instance for questions arising from the declarations.
As mentioned in our Policyholder FAQs, our view has been that insurers should not include the period between 17 June 2020 and the final resolution of the test case when relying on any time limits within which policyholders must make claims that were potentially affected by the test case or take any other step under the terms of their policies. Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court’s Order has brought this period to an end, of course, insurers will need to continue to consider whether any proposed rejection of a claim due to a failure to comply with a time period in the policy is fair in the circumstances.
Policyholders who are dissatisfied with their insurer’s rejection of their claim due to a time limit in the policy may complain to their insurer and, if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, may refer their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Insurance intermediaries acting for policyholders should seek to support them, as appropriate, to progress their claims quickly with their insurer. They should also consider whether it is fair, and in the policyholders’ best interests, to notify the policyholder if the intermediary reasonably considers that they may have a claim under their policy.
Insurers have provided the latest submission of BI claims information, based on their records of the numbers of claims and the values of interim/initial payments and final settlements meeting the criteria specified in our information request. We have published the latest extract of BI claims, based on insurer submissions to the FCA at 5 July 2021.
On 12 March 2021 we published an updated list of policies affected by the test case. Since then, for consistency and completeness, we asked insurers to submit the following additional wordings for inclusion on the list:
We have today published a further updated list of non-damage BI policies in principle, capable of responding to the Covid-19 pandemic in at least some circumstances, as submitted by insurers. Inclusion in this list does not mean that the outcome on any particular claim for the policy wordings will be affected or that a particular policyholder will have a valid claim. Each policy wording and policyholder’s circumstances will need to be considered on a case by case basis, including to determine how much is payable.
Insurers have provided the latest submission of BI claims information, based on their records of the numbers of claims and the values of interim/initial payments and final settlements meeting the criteria specified in our information request. We have published the latest extract of BI claims, based on insurer submissions to the FCA at 5 May 2021.
While the Supreme Court Office is not able to commit to a timeframe, it has indicated to the parties that the Declarations Order may be available next week. We will publish the Order on this webpage as soon as it is available.
Insurers have provided the latest submission of BI claims information, based on their records of the numbers of claims and the values of interim/initial payments and final settlements meeting the criteria specified in our information request.
We have published the latest extract of BI claims, based on insurer submissions to the FCA at 6 April 2021.
Our Dear CEO letter on 22 January 2021 set out our intention to gather information regularly from all affected insurers on the progress of their non-damage BI claims, and to publish some of this data. Insurers have provided the first submission of this information, based on their records of the numbers of claims and the values of interim/initial payments and final settlements meeting the criteria specified in our information request.
We have published some of this claims data for the first time, based on insurer submissions to the FCA at 3 March 2021. We intend to publish this data on a monthly basis.
We have published finalised guidance setting out how to prove the presence of Covid-19 in a particular area, based on the High Court’s judgment and declarations.
We have also published a feedback statement summarising the feedback received on our draft guidance published on 11 December 2020.
We are working to create an online calculator to help policyholders gather two types of evidence described in the guidance: ‘Reported Cases’ and ‘Estimated Cases’ (as described in Chapters 7, 8 and 9 of the guidance). The calculator should be available soon. If you would like to use the calculator, please sign up for our BI test case email alerts and you will get an email when the calculator is launched.
The FCA and the other parties to the test case have made written submissions to the Supreme Court on the form of the declarations to be issued by the Court. These declarations will be the culmination of the judgments in the test case and will declare whether the policies in the representative sample potentially cover business interruption losses arising from the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.
We have published:
We expect that the Supreme Court will issue the declarations without a further hearing, but we do not know when.
We believe that the judgment from the Supreme Court gives insurers the clarity they need to conclude their claims processes with the large majority of their BI customers, without waiting for the declarations.
We have published a policy checker and FAQs to help policyholders find out if their insurance policy may cover business interruption losses caused by coronavirus and what they can do next.
Following the judgment from the Supreme Court, we have issued a Dear CEO letter outlining our expectations of insurers following the judgment.
In order to assist policyholders and other stakeholders to understand the outcome of the test case, we have published a table setting out the outcome of the test case and key paragraphs of the judgments according to policy type in the representative sample of 21 policy wordings.
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment. It substantially allows the FCA’s appeal and dismisses the insurers’ appeals. This means that many thousands of policyholders who have cover should now have their claims for coronavirus -related business interruption losses paid.
We have issued a press release on the judgment.
The judgment is complex and runs to 112 pages. Our legal team at Herbert Smith Freehills have published a bulletin summarising the judgment on their website.
Our consultation closes on 18 January 2021. We are willing to extend the time for your comments on this draft document to Friday 22 January 2021 but only for matters that are supplemental and arise from the Supreme Court judgment. All other comments should be sent by the 18 January deadline.
Policyholders may wish to contact their broker and/or insurer before accepting any full and final settlement offer, in case it needs to be updated following the Supreme Court judgment.
The Supreme Court has announced that it will deliver its judgment on Friday 15 January 2021 at 9:45 am.
We understand that delivery of the judgment may last around 15 minutes, and the full written judgment is likely to be published on the Supreme Court’s website very soon after that.
In order to view the delivery of the judgment:
We have been informed by the Supreme Court that it will not be in a position to hand down the judgment before January 2021.
We have published a statement and consultation on draft guidance as to how the presence of coronavirus in a particular area may be proved, based on the High Court’s judgment and declarations. We do not expect this aspect of the High Court’s ruling to be affected by the appeals to the Supreme Court and we are not pre-judging the outcome of the appeals. This document explains the types of evidence and methodologies which policyholders can use, together with links to further useful information for policyholders. This is intended to provide clarity for all parties and to help ensure that the process of proving the presence of coronavirus is made as simple as possible for policyholders, to enable them to receive pay outs as early as possible where they remain eligible following judgment from the Supreme Court. We are asking for comments on this guidance consultation by 18 January 2021.
We have published:
We have published the draft transcript of day 4 of the Supreme Court appeal hearing.
We have published the draft transcript of day 3 of the Supreme Court appeal hearing.
The Supreme Court appeal hearing has now ended. Lord Reed recognised the importance of an early judgment for the businesses affected. He said that the Justices would do what they could to provide judgment as quickly as possible, but could not comment on whether that would be before Christmas or in January. The Court intends to keep the parties informed, and we will update this webpage to that effect as soon as we can.
We have published the draft transcript of day 2 of the Supreme Court appeal hearing.
Videos of the appeal hearing are being uploaded to the Supreme Court website. To find these, click on the following link and go to the ‘Watch hearing’ section at the bottom of the page: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0177.html
We have published the draft transcript of day 1 of the Supreme Court appeal hearing. We will publish final transcripts when they are available.
The parties have agreed the full running order for the Supreme Court hearing, which started today, which is broadly as follows (using abbreviations for party names):
The lunch adjournment is c.13.00-14.00 each day.
The Supreme Court has issued a hand out summarising the issues, facts, procedural chronology and counsel for the appeal.
The Supreme Court will live-stream the appeal, which is due to take place on 16-19 November. The Court will sit as follows:
In order to view the live-stream:
We have published the written cases for the appeals in the Supreme Court of:
See the third column of the table published on 4 November for whether the appeal may change the overall outcome of cover for a policy in the representative sample.
We have also published the written cases responding to those appeals:
We have also published:
In order to assist policyholders and other stakeholders in understanding the High Court judgment, High Court declarations and the test case generally, we have published:
None of these publications contain any new information, but they are intended to aid navigation of the court documents. They are not definitive or legally binding. Policyholders are again encouraged to speak to their insurance intermediaries and/or their advisers in the first instance for questions arising from the judgment, declarations and appeal.
On 2 November, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to all those who had applied for it (see 20 October update).
The appeal in the Supreme Court will be heard from Monday 16 November and is expected to last for 4 days.
The appeal hearing will be by video link.
As we have stated previously, we believe that this 'leapfrog' appeal to the Supreme Court is the fastest way to get legal clarity for all parties in the event that it is not possible to find a solution with insurers which resolves the outstanding issues, before the appeal takes place, to enable pay-outs on eligible claims.
As Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc has confirmed it will not be appealing the High Court's judgment in respect of the RSA4 wording, Hospitality Insurance Group Action has confirmed that it will not be seeking to intervene in the Supreme Court appeal.
We have published the High Court declarations made in the test case. These are the culmination of the test case judgment and declare how and to what extent the policies in the representative sample respond to business interruption losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
We expect to publish shortly a guide to the declarations for policyholders. Policyholders are encouraged to speak to their insurance intermediaries and/or their advisers in the first instance for questions arising from the declarations.
Policyholders should note that the FCA, 6 defendant insurers and the Hiscox Action Group have applied to appeal the High Court judgment and declarations. This is addressed later in this update.
We have also published:
Following the High Court granting certificates for a ‘leapfrog’ appeal to the Supreme Court on 2 October, the FCA and others are entitled to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.
As stated in our 30 September press release we are continuing discussions with insurers and action groups, to find a solution which resolves the outstanding issues as soon as possible to enable pay-outs on eligible claims. In parallel with this, the FCA, 6 defendant insurers and the Hiscox Action Group have applied for permission appeal to the Supreme Court. We believe that this 'leapfrog' appeal is the fastest way to get legal clarity as quickly as possible for all parties in the event that it is not possible to resolve the outstanding issues in the coming weeks.
We have also published applications to appeal to the Supreme Court from the 6 appellant defendants and Hiscox Action Group:
We have published the draft transcript of the consequentials hearing on 2 October.
Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Butcher have made various orders consequential upon their judgment in the test case.
The orders included a series of declarations as to the effect of the judgment, which we will publish as soon as available.
In light of the hearing, the FCA will review the final declarations and decide on its next steps. As stated in our press release on Wednesday, these will include pressing on with the application to appeal to the Supreme Court while continuing discussions with insurers and action groups to find a solution that avoids the need for appeal and enables pay-outs on eligible claims as quickly as possible.
The High Court granted ‘leapfrog’ certificates for an appeal to the Supreme Court to:
Those who received a certificate are now entitled to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.
Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Plc withdrew its ‘leapfrog’ application before the hearing on 2 October.
QIC Europe Limited applied to become a party to the test case in order to bring an appeal. The court rejected this application.
The above will be contained in a sealed order from the court, which we will publish here as soon as it is available.
We have published a press release, setting out the current position on discussions between the parties.
On 2 October, the Court will hear submissions from the parties on:
We have published the following skeleton arguments (written submissions) for the consequentials hearing:
We have published the FCA’s application for a ‘leapfrog’ appeal to the Supreme Court.
This is very short and is expanded upon in the FCA’s skeleton argument.
We have also published ‘leapfrog’ applications from the following defendants and Intervener:
The deadline for parties to apply for a 'leapfrog' appeal to the Supreme Court was yesterday. We have published a press release stating the FCA’s position on the appeals process.
We received hundreds of requests for meetings with our legal team to discuss the impact of the test case. In order to cater to such high demand and to speak to as many policyholders and their legal representatives as possible, we held meetings over 4 days this week. These meetings addressed issues such as the impact of the judgment for policyholders with policies in the representative sample considered by the Court and for policyholders with other policies. We are grateful to all participants for their views, which we are taking into account.
The court has ordered that:
We will publish the sealed order of the court when it is available. [Update on 20 October: we have now published the 15 October order.]
We will publish any documents referred to in the bullet points above, to the extent that we are permitted to, when they are available.
Following the judgment from the High Court, we have issued a Dear CEO letter outlining our expectations of insurers following the judgment.
The Court has confirmed that the consequentials hearing will take place on 2 October, where the Court will hear submissions from the parties on the appropriate declarations to be made by the Court in the light of the judgment and on any applications for appeal.
We will confirm the time of the hearing (probably 10:30) and publish details of the live-stream on this webpage when available.
We have published the judgment in the test case, which has just been handed down by the High Court.
We have also issued a press release on the judgment.
The judgment is complex and runs to over 150 pages. Our legal team at Herbert Smith Freehills have published a summary on their website.
A hearing will shortly be fixed with the High Court, where any applications for appeal will likely be made. The court has agreed to live-stream this hearing if it is heard remotely. We will publish the hearing date and details of the live-stream on this webpage when available.
Every policyholder who has made a claim or complaint that is potentially affected by the judgment should receive an update from their insurer within 7 days.
In the meantime, the test case does not prevent policyholders making or settling any claim under their business interruption policy, making a complaint to their insurer if they are dissatisfied with the outcome, and referring their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Policyholders with complaints at the Financial Ombudsman Service that are potentially affected by the judgment should await further information from the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has published information on business interruption insurance complaints on its website.
Our legal team has set aside time on 21 and 22 September to speak directly with as many policyholders and intermediaries and their legal advisers as reasonably possible, given the time constraints.
We will consider meeting requests made to us by 5pm on Thursday 17 September.
Please email: [email protected] stating only the word 'Meeting' in the subject line of the email and stating your availability in the body of the email. If you would like to talk about a particular policy, please email the policy document to us as well as correspondence from your insurer regarding whether your claim is potentially affected by the test case.
The court has stated that judgment will be handed down at 10:30am on Tuesday 15 September 2020.
We will publish the judgment on this webpage once it has been handed down.
We have published:
We have published:
The trial has now concluded and judgment is awaited. We have amended this page above, including with information about what happens next.
We have published the draft transcript of day 7 of the trial.
We have published the draft transcript of day 6 of the trial.
We have published the draft transcript of day 5 of the trial.
We have published the draft transcript of day 4 of the trial.
We have published the draft transcript of day 3 of the trial.
We have published the draft transcript of day 2 of the trial.
We have published the draft transcript of day 1 of the trial.
We have published below a number of other documents which will be used as part of the trial commencing on Monday 20 July.
The Agreed List of Issues and Common Ground summarises what is and is not in dispute between the parties. This supersedes the Questions for Determination.
The Agreed Facts are sets of facts, with supporting evidence, which the parties have now agreed and which are necessary to resolve the issues in dispute:
The new Assumed Facts document contains factual scenarios which some parties will use in the trial to illustrate their views as to how coverage is triggered. These have developed out of the previous Assumed Facts document, as a result of discussion and agreement between the parties.
We have published the defendants’ skeleton arguments (written submissions) for trial:
Following the Case Management Conference on 26 June, we have published the sealed court order made.
On 17 June 2020 we published Finalised Guidance for insurers in relation to the test case. We asked insurers to review relevant non-damage business interruption policies to determine whether the outcome on claims generally (including questions of causation of loss) may be affected by the final resolution of the test case. We asked insurers to provide us with their findings.
We have published the list of affected insurers and policies that were submitted to the FCA as part of this process.
The policies listed cover approximately 370,000 policyholders.
Insurers have been requested to update the FCA as the case develops on the outcome of this review. We will update the list to reflect any updated reviews as appropriate.
We have published the FCA’s and Interveners’ skeleton arguments (written submissions) for trial commencing on 20 July:
We have also published:
The FCA has now served its Reply, which sets out its response to the Defences.
Since 24 June we have received more than 90 detailed submissions from policyholders and other stakeholders on the Defences. We considered these when drafting the Reply. We also conducted numerous meetings with policyholders and other stakeholders as part of this process.
We have also published:
At this hearing, Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Butcher gave various directions relating to how the test case is to proceed, including that:
We have published a draft, provisional transcript for the hearing, and will publish the final approved transcript as well as the court order when they are available.
We have published the final approved transcript of this hearing.
Following the Case Management Conference on 16 June, we have published the sealed court order made.
The defendants to the test case have now served their Defences. These state each defendant’s written case, in response to the FCA’s Particulars of Claim. We have published each Defence below:
The FCA’s Reply, which is the written response to the Defences above, is due on 3 July. The FCA’s skeleton argument (written submissions) for the final hearing is due after that. We are inviting policyholders, their insurance intermediaries, other stakeholders and their legal advisers to provide comments on the Defences, which we will consider when drafting our Reply and skeleton argument.
What we are asking for:
The earlier you can send your comments the better. We will consider comments provided to us by 3pm on Monday 29 June.
Please email: [email protected] stating only the word ‘Defences’ in the subject line of the email.
Where you are a member of an action group pursuing action against an insurer or of a relevant trade body, please could you also identify this clearly in the body of the email.
We will contact you if we have any queries in relation to the comments raised, but we will not be able to respond individually to all emails sent to this email address.
Our legal team has set aside time on 30 June and 1 July to speak directly with as many policyholders and intermediaries and their legal advisers as reasonably possible, given the time constraints.
We will consider meeting requests made to us by 5pm on Friday 26 June.
Please email: [email protected] stating only the word 'Meeting' in the subject line of the email and stating your availability in the body of the email.
At this hearing, Mr Justice Butcher made an order relating to how the test case is to proceed, including that:
We will publish a copy of the court order and transcript for the hearing once they are available.
In accordance with the order of Mr Justice Butcher on 16 June, notice is given that any non-party wishing to make an application under paragraph 2.5 of Practice Direction 51M should make any such application by 5pm on 24 June 2020 on notice to all parties to the litigation, any such application to be returnable at the Second CMC.
'Returnable at the Second CMC' means that any such application will be heard at the second Case Management Conference on 26 June 2020.
We have published Finalised Guidance setting out our expectations for insurers and insurance intermediaries when handling claims and complaints for business interruption policies during the test case brought by the FCA.
We have also published a Feedback Statement summarising the feedback received on our draft guidance published on 1 June 2020.
The first Case Management Conference before a judge takes place on 16 June.
At this hearing, the judge will:
We have started proceedings in the High Court and published the court documents related to this:
We have updated the initial list of affected insurers and the policy wordings they use to reflect the changes to the Representative Sample of Policy Wordings. Read a tracked changes version so that you can see how this document has developed to date from the proposal published on 1 June 2020 (which is also available below). As stated in the 1 June 2020 update , this list is not exhaustive, and our expectation remains to publish a list of all the relevant insurers and wordings that may be impacted by the test case in early July.
Since 1 June we have received more than 270 submissions from policyholders and other stakeholders on our proposed Questions for Determination and other documents relating to the scope of the test case that we published on 1 June. We and our advisers, Herbert Smith Freehills, have also conducted more than 45 consultations with policyholders and other stakeholders. We have taken account of the comments we received in formulating our Particulars of Claim and the other documents we published today. In particular:
We have also published the documents relating to our application that the test case be heard urgently, and as part of the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme (which is a scheme for financial claims raising issues of general importance that require immediate court guidance):
The first Case Management Conference before a judge is expected to take place on 16 June (TBC). The judge will be invited to consider our application for expedition and admission to the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme, fix the timetable for the case (including the date for the court hearing in the second half of July) and deal with other procedural matters.
We intend to ask the judge to agree to live-stream this hearing, and will provide a further update on this as soon as we can.
We expect to issue a further invitation to policyholders and other stakeholders to provide us with comments shortly after 23 June, when the insurer parties in the test case file their Defences. This will help us ensure that stakeholder comments are reflected in our Reply and skeleton arguments (written submissions) prepared for the final court hearing.
We have updated our Policyholder Engagement Statement, including to refer to our privacy notice for information on how and why we handle any personal data sent to us.
We announced that we have identified the representative sample of policy wordings to be examined in the test case, insurers that use those wordings, and which of those insurers we have invited, and have agreed, to participate in the proceedings.
The initial list of insurers and the policy wordings they use is not exhaustive, and we published a short consultation on draft guidance asking all insurers to check their policy wordings against those we intend to test to see if theirs will be impacted by the outcome of the case. We said our expectation was to publish a list of all the relevant insurers and wordings that may have impacted policies in early July.
The consultation on draft guidance also set out the FCA’s expectations of all firms handling BI claims and any related complaints between now and the court decision.
We also published 4 key documents, which we intend to invite the Court to consider and would therefore form the basis of the test case:
We invited policyholders, their insurance intermediaries, insurers, other stakeholders and their legal advisers to provide their comments on these documents by 3pm on Friday 5 June.
We also invited comments on these documents from the insurers who will be the parties to the test case.
We invited policyholders and intermediaries to have consultations with our legal team at Herbert Smith Freehills on 3 and 4 June.
We invited policyholders of BI insurance who are in dispute with their insurers over the terms of their policies to send us their arguments by 20 May 2020 if they wished us to take them into account as part of the test case. In particular, we asked for:
We needed policyholders’ arguments urgently in line with the FCA’s intention to seek the court’s view on relevant policies as soon as possible, and we said we would consider all arguments and information raised to us by 20 May 2020. We are taking those arguments into account as part of the test case.
We issued a statement setting out our intention to obtain court declarations aimed at resolving the contractual uncertainty around the validity of many BI claims. We explained we are intending to take this action in the public interest to advance our consumer protection and market integrity objectives, with the aim of obtaining legal guidance more quickly and at lower cost to policyholders than would be the case if they took their own actions.
Alongside our statement, we asked insurance companies for information on their BI policies and wordings, and their intentions and decisions in relation to claims on these policies by 15 May 2020. We are using this information to consider, with external counsel, which policies we will seek to achieve a declaratory judgment on through the courts. We want a representative sample of wordings to give as much clarity as possible, whilst recognising that the need for an expedited court process means we can’t achieve clarity on every different wording. We are not yet in a position to definitively identify which policy wordings, or indeed firms, may be included in proceedings.
We wrote to all chief executives of insurance firms. This Dear CEO letter outlined our expectations of firms with regard to the settlement of BI claims and the need to assess and settle claims quickly.
We set out our expectations for insurance firms. This outlined our expectation that firms should consider very carefully the needs of their customers and show flexibility in their treatment of them.