More details on
Business interruption insurance
Business interruption insurance
UK zoos & lockdown going forward...
- Thread starter TriUK
- Start date
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Yes we have seen this before as a result of an earlier circulation.
It appears to be related to losses due to the actual presence of the virus, and NOT losses as a result of Government closure policies resulting from the pandemic.
So, of little if any use, unfortunately in most instances... and another diversionary headline?
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Mmmm.... thank you Ned.
Interesting, but still of no use unfortunately. Based on 2019 visitor numbers and 2020 spend levels, the loss of income at Hamerton for 1 week of March, April, May, 2 weeks of June, and November was around £750,000 - quite simple sums really.
Our insurers have dismissed our claim entirely. We have 2 sets of independent legal advice, both confirming that we have a case, and our losses are covered by our policy, as it was agreed to, offered and paid for at the time - if not the new wording imposed for next year.
The best offer to take the case forward is an upfront payment to the lawyers of £50,000, followed by an open ended commitment thereafter.
Unless someone has £50k to donate, we cannot afford to buy justice at these prices; so High Court verdicts are largely irrelevant.
Did you trawl thru to the further link that is in the FCA page
Supreme Court hands down judgment in FCA’s Covid-19 Business Interruption Test Case
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Fleetingly.... but not taking in most of it.
It would appear to me that the Govenment's position that zoos were not required to close (March to June at least) but people were not allowed to travel to them, is not covered by the judgement and would need another test case. Plenty of scope to earn tens of thousands for the lawyers, if any zoo could afford the gamble...
Until we can find a list of zoos which have successfully made a claim and how they did it, this remains just a headline, unfortunately - and not one we can afford to pursue.
I assume we are talking business interruption insurance. That is my understanding here also, and I believe that pandemic exclusion is a global policy for insurance companies, and had been for many years. An article I read suggested that if it was covered the total liability would be several times the entire resources of the insurance industry. Having said that I have heard that some lawyers are trying for a class action.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Absolutely... that sums up exactly what our insurers have now told us; although our policy wording, offered and accepted, does not state that pandemics are excluded, and they initially told us in writing that we could claim, only to later retract this.
Presumably this contradiction gives the opportunity for potential speculative legal action, if one is able to afford the gamble...
The headlines come from the BBC's report of an earlier UK Supreme Court ruling, which has not (yet, at least) changed our insurers position.
Our policy specifically excluded it, so no loopholes there. However it seems our governments seem to have been far more supportive than yours, plus the virus is all but extinct here, so I can’t complain.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
You are indeed fortunate; and your country with its relative isolation and careful approach to imports, be they goods, people or animals; is in a better position than many. The UK too being an island of course, would have historically more tightly controlled movements across its borders. Thirty years of European integration requiring at its core the removal of border controls on goods and people, has eroded (dumbed down?) our historic position, and the people in control now are a product of the new order.
It is of course a very small World now, and what could be described as 'extinct', could also be just locally and temporarily, absent - pending the arrival of the next person from China, or Brazil, or South Africa, or anywhere really, be they just tourists, business people of part of a 'permitted' sporting elite.
Last edited:
So I read something that affects both of us in my paper's business section this morning.
Firstly for you the article references a test case run last year by your (the UK) corporate regulator which largely found in favour of policyholders. The insurance industry appealed to the UK Supreme Court but on Friday it knocked out the insurers' main grounds of appeal. You may yet have grounds for a claim.
Secondly the article reports that in Australia the insurance industry ran a test case in the NSW Supreme Court to prove there was no grounds for claims. They lost. It turns out the majority of policies reference an obsolete Act of Parliament. The insurers have appealed to the High Court of Australia, so we shall see where that goes. However insurance companies are declaring massive increases in their potential liabilities and also seeking to raise huge amounts of additional capital.
Interesting times.
I read an article today stating that '24 UK zoos may be forced to close permanently after 'selling off their animals' (it doesn't happen like that these days..). No particular places are mentioned or where this figure comes from. The main thrust of the article is a plea to make more of the gov't rescue funding available to more zoos and at an earlier stage, but I'm still interested to know where some of the '24' might be...
Last edited:
It is scandalous that the government allows the outdoor areas of national trust and English heritage properties to open (one near me charges £15 per adult currently for 'outdoor exercise' ) whilst all zoos, many predominantly outdoor eg Whipsnade, Hamerton are forced to close. These stately homes etc do not have anything like the costs zoos do whilst closed.
Was surprised these mainly rural locations were allowed to stay open- given you aren't supposed to leave your local/postal area. An open 'tropical' garden near me has now just closed as its been attracting visitors from outside the immediate area, which is against the rules.
Me neither! Not even that tuneless introductory music- off it goes!!!
Still hoping someone can shed some light on where the idea of the 24 'closing' zoos has come from, or where they are. Maybe its just the press...
littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
I think it's been mentioned many times before, but it's the money behind those with an interest in national trust properties, or something .... the term lobbyists kept cropping up.
The village that has some harry potter connection (and is national trust I believe) was recently featured for for being as busy as summer. Ridiculous isn't it.
By being open they are encouraging people to travel there from a lot further away than just the nearest village I am quite sure. At the same time those two young ladies were fined for going too far from their homes, the same(?) police force was featured turning people away from Caulke(?) Abbey, an NT property, which was open- mixed messaging in the extreme? It seems the situation hasn't changed a lot since then.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
I can't find the article...
All that shows up on an internet search for '24 UK zoos to close' is the various June 2020 references to Chester's risk of closure because it is £24million in debt - is that where the figure 24 is from?