Authors

Katie Chandler

Partner

Read More

Stephanie High

Senior Associate

Read More
Authors

Katie Chandler

Partner

Read More

Stephanie High

Senior Associate

Read More

21 July 2020

Disputes Quick Read – 79 of 88 Insights

Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?

  • QUICK READ

A consideration of arguments on the principles of contractual construction in the FCA test case on business interruption insurance.

Like many industries across the country, we are closely following the FCA's novel test case seeking clarity on business interruption insurance during the coronavirus crisis. The 10-day trial starts in the High Court on 20 July. Businesses – particularly SME policyholders, who the FCA is taking a strong stance in favour of in the case – may stand or fall depending on the case's outcome.

Although this case relates to insurance policies, what the Court is essentially carrying out is an exercise in contractual construction, clarifying the objective meaning of the wording of the policies in question. The Court has clear guidance from the Supreme Court on this issue – most recently in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, [2017] AC 1173 – and, as the FCA comments in its 300+ page skeleton argument for the hearing, the general principles of contractual construction "are unlikely to be controversial".

While this appears to be so for the most part, differences between the parties on this issue have inevitably arisen, and the Court's approach is likely to have wider application beyond cases concerning the interpretation of insurance policies.

One such issue the Court might need to resolve is the role of the longstanding doctrine of contra proferentem. Understandably, the FCA seeks to rely on this rule, which they say requires the Court to apply a construction in favour of the insured where there is ambiguity about the construction of the policies.

The insurers have questioned the utility of the doctrine. They argue it is "out of step" with the principles of contractual interpretation and consider it "instructive" that the principle has not been mentioned in any of the recent Supreme Court decisions on contractual construction.

However, the insurers' attempt to do away with the doctrine seems ambitious to us. Their suggestion that the principle is, at most, a port of last resort, seems to be common ground – but it does not mean the doctrine has no place in the Court's consideration at all.

Given the test case concerns standard "off the shelf" policies, primarily for "unsophisticated" SMEs, the Court might look to the doctrine of contra proferentem if it is unable to resolve ambiguities in the policies. The insurers' argument that the policyholders were commercial parties who entered into the policies largely on the advice of brokers in a competitive insurance market seems unlikely to ring true with most of the SME policyholders affected by this case.

It therefore seems unlikely that the insurers' efforts to do away with this doctrine will be successful, and ambiguous clauses will continue to be construed against the party who proposed or drafted them. That said, the Court will be careful not to construe the wordings so strictly that it defies all business common sense.

In this series

Disputes & investigations

Internal investigations - raising the bar

1 May 2024

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud

21 March 2024

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

1 February 2024

by Katie Chandler, Emma Allen

Disputes & investigations

ClientEarth v FCA: Challenging Regulator Decisions

12 February 2024

by Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev

Disputes & investigations

First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts

14 December 2023

Disputes & investigations

The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC

23 October 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?

14 August 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty

4 August 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell

1 June 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

CJC costs review – what will change?

1 June 2023

by James Bryden, Helen Robinson

Disputes & investigations

Embargoed judgments – dos and don'ts

16 May 2023

by Stephanie High

Cryptoassets, blockchain and distributed ledger technology

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

by Nick Maday

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

by Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

21 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Privilege waiver warning

2 July 2020

by Tim Strong, Georgina Jones

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

by Multiple authors

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Product liability & product safety

Product liability of online marketplace operators

Current framework and future developments

12 March 2024
Briefing

by multiple authors

Click here to find out more
Disputes & investigations

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

1 February 2024

by Katie Chandler and Emma Allen

Click here to find out more
Product liability & product safety

Automotive update – driving ahead into 2024

Part 2 of 2

29 January 2024
Briefing

by multiple authors

Click here to find out more