Insuralex

  • The Group
    • About us
    • Current Management
    • Past Presidents
    • Membership inquiries
    • Regulatory Information
  • Experience and Vision
  • Services
  • Members
  • News + Articles
  • Reports
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ´s
Join

Risks of pandemic-related insurance – a public-private partnership on the horizon…

by Insuralex / Thursday, 18 June 2020 / Published in News + Articles

The enforceability of extension clauses relating to contagious or infectious diseases contained in certain business interruption insurance policies has raised legal and policy considerations, with different opinions being advanced from within legal circles.

The South African Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) and Prudential Authority (PA) (collectively, the Authorities) have released Joint Communication 5 of 2020. This regulatory response to business interruption insurance clauses requires, inter alia, clear communication from insurers to their policyholders regarding the extent of the insured’s cover in relation to COVID-19 and the adoption of an approach that will ensure fair outcomes for the parties. It was confirmed that the Authorities were not considering initiatives that require insurers to retroactively cover losses related to COVID-19, which were specifically excluded from policies.

This position is similar to the position that has been adopted by the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in its final guidance for firms. The FCA has obtained samples of policy wordings for business interruption clauses and will be approaching the courts in a test case to ascertain the liability of insurers for claims related to the coronavirus pandemic. The final guidance for firms published by the FCA requires insurers to inform policyholders of affected claims and inform policyholders of the test case and the impact that the test case may have on their claims. Insurers are also required to fairly resolve claims once the test case has been concluded.

Whilst developments in this regard will be followed with interest, of equal importance is the position likely to be adopted by insurers and regulators in relation to future pandemics. With scientific reports pointing towards the intensification of pandemic risks due to globalisation and urbanisation, it is no surprise that some insurers have moved towards the mid-term withdrawal of cover relating to infectious or contagious diseases. Pandemic risks, due to the magnitude of the number of potential policyholders affected, coupled with the substantial period of time required for the risk to dissipate, present significant obstacles for private insurers to provide cover. In addition, the losses are driven by considerations of public policy and by public policy decision makers as was the case with the implementation of the ‘hard lockdown’ and regulations promulgated under the Disaster Management Act. This uncertainty threatens insurers with potential material solvency risks and undermines their ability to settle other types of claims.

A different suggestion has been offered by the legislators in the United States of America. A bill titled ‘Pandemic Risk Insurance Act’ was introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney on 26 May 2020, and is currently being considered by the House Committee on Financial Services. The bill seeks to legislate business interruption and event cancellation reinsurance by the government for stated losses incurred by participating insurers for a specified period. Insurers would be able to cover pandemic related business interruption claims with government providing cover of up to 95% of the losses incurred by insurers in specified instances. The bill seeks to provide cover in instances where a public health emergency, as with the COVID-19 pandemic, is identified and declared as such in terms of the applicable legislation.

As the lockdown restrictions slowly lift and businesses seek to resume operations, many are likely to renew leases, invest in real estate, incur operational expenses related to their industries and ensure that these initiatives are covered for losses in the event of a resurgence of the coronavirus and future pandemics. A public-private partnership between the South African government and the insurance sector, such as that proposed by the USA’s Pandemic Risk Insurance Act, may provide some comfort as it will mitigate against the losses that businesses and the insurance sector may jointly incur.

Continues…

Download the complete article

Authors: Byron O’Connor and Akhona Mdunge

 
               

 

  Print to PDF

Tagged under: Insuralex South Africa, Insurance Lawyers South Africa, Pandemic Insurance South Africa

Search

Categories

  • Allende & Brea
  • Andıç Partners
  • Arzinger
  • Barze Taylor Noles Lowther LLC
  • Belzuz Abogados Spain
  • Belzuz Portugal
  • BLP Costa Rica
  • BLP El Salvador
  • BLP Guatemala
  • BLP Honduras
  • BLP Nicaragua
  • Brigard Urrutia
  • Bullivant Houser Bailey PC
  • Carter Perry Bailey LLP
  • D’Empaire
  • Ens
  • Estudio Carvallo Abogados
  • Ferrere Abogados
  • Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A
  • Gross, Orad, Schlimoff & Co.
  • HeplerBroom LLC
  • Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek
  • Jáuregui y Del Valle
  • Kellerhals Carrard
  • Larson ⋅ King
  • Law Firm Paul Muylaert
  • Marlow, Adler, Abrams & Rotunno
  • Mason Hayes & Curran
  • MehaffyWeber
  • Meridian Lawyers
  • Moreno Baldivieso
  • News + Articles
  • Olczak-Klimek van der Kroft Węgiełek
  • Osterling Abogados
  • PD Law Offices
  • Pereyra & Asociados
  • Pérez Bustamante & Ponce
  • Peroni Sosa Tellechea Burt & Narvaja
  • Pinheiro Neto Advogados
  • Popovici Nițu Stoica & Asociații
  • Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell
  • Reports
  • Sajic
  • Saldaña Carvajal & Vélez-Rivé PSC
  • SCP Soulié & Coste-Floret
  • Streefkerk Advocaten
  • Studio Legale Giorgetti
  • Sucre Arias Reyes
  • Tramposch & Partner
  • Uncategorized
  • Zuber & Company LLC.

OUR SPONSORS

  • The Group
  • Experience and Vision
  • Services
  • Members
  • News + Articles
  • Reports
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ´s

Insuralex is not a law firm, does not practice law and does not provide legal advice or legal opinions. Insuralex members are not a partnership of law firms or lawyers and are not affiliated or in a relationship for the joint practice of law. Insuralex member firms are strictly independent firms.

Insuralex 2025    Cookie Policy | Conditions of use | Privacy Policy | FAQ's | Contact

TOP
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}