Hyper Trust Ltd Trading as The Leopardstown Inn v FBD Insurance Plc
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Denis McDonald |
Judgment Date | 05 February 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 78 |
Date | 05 February 2021 |
Court | High Court |
Docket Number | [No. 2020/3656 P.] [No. 2020/3402 P.] [No. 2020/3453 P.] |
[2021] IEHC 78
[No. 2020/3656 P.]
[No. 2020/3658 P.]
[No. 2020/3402 P.]
[No. 2020/3453 P.]
THE HIGH COURT
COMMERCIAL
Insurance – Losses – Liability – Plaintiffs seeking pandemic coverage – Whether the defendant was obliged to cover any of the losses suffered by the plaintiffs
Facts: In each of these four cases, the principal question which arose was whether the defendant insurer, FBD, was obliged to cover any of the losses suffered by the plaintiffs following the imposed closure of public houses at the behest of the Government on 15th March, 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic began to take hold in Ireland. Each of the plaintiffs held policies of insurance issued by FBD in advance of 15th March, 2020. If it was concluded that FBD had a liability to the plaintiffs under the respective policies of insurance, a further issue would arise as to the extent of the cover available under the policies. The dispute between the parties related to the proper interpretation of s. 3 of the policy. In each of these cases, FBD had declined cover in respect of the plaintiffs’ losses on the grounds that the imposed closure did not arise in consequence of an outbreak of COVID-19 on any of the plaintiffs’ premises or within a 25-mile radius of the premises. FBD maintained that the imposed closure arose not as a consequence of a local outbreak of the disease but as a consequence of the countrywide presence of the disease. FBD accepted that there was an imposed Government closure but it contended that the closure could not be said to have been causatively linked to an outbreak of COVID-19 which occurred within the 25-mile radius surrounding the plaintiffs’ respective premises. It was also argued initially by FBD that pandemic coverage was plainly not contemplated or intended by the FBD policy. Later, it was clarified that FBD did not go so far as to contend that the policy could never respond in a pandemic situation although counsel for FBD continued to argue that the fact that the closure of public houses arose against the backdrop of a pandemic was, nonetheless, relevant to the question as to whether the conditions of the FBD policy had been satisfied.
Held by the High Court (McDonald J) that it would hold against FBD in relation to the interpretation of extension (1) (d) of the policy; the relevant peril is the imposed closure following outbreaks of infectious or contagious disease on or within 25 miles of the premises. McDonald J was of the view that cover is not lost where the closure is prompted by nationwide outbreaks of disease provided that there is an outbreak within the 25 mile radius and that outbreak is one of the causes of the closure. It seemed to him that the outbreaks which occurred within 25 miles of each of the plaintiffs’ premises were a proximate cause of the imposed closure of public houses announced by the government on 15th March, 2020. He held that the fact that outbreaks outside that 25 mile radius were also proximate causes of the government decision did not alter that conclusion. In the case of each of the plaintiffs (other than the Lemon & Duke plaintiff) he had formed the view that the correct counterfactual is a world in which there is no imposed closure and no outbreaks within 25 miles of the plaintiffs’ premises; however, that counterfactual would also exclude any overlapping proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ losses. He held that the position of the Lemon & Duke plaintiff was different; it had the benefit of a policy subject to the specific representation made to it by FBD on 2nd March, 2020 that cover would be available if the premises were the subject of an imposed closure by reason of coronavirus and that representation made no reference to outbreaks being confined within a radial distance of 25 miles from its premises. In those circumstances, it appeared to him that the correct counterfactual in its case is a world in which there is no imposed closure and no outbreaks of COVID-19.
McDonald J held that he would list this matter remotely for mention on 17th February, 2021 at 10.30 a.m. with a view to giving the parties, in the meantime, an opportunity to consider this judgment and to agree the next steps.
Judgment approved.
JUDGMENT ofMr. Justice Denis McDonalddelivered on 5 th February, 2021
Introduction | 4 |
The evidence before the court | 12 |
The ruling in relation to the admissibility of documents | 12 |
The second ruling | 17 |
The witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing | 33 |
The plaintiffs | 34 |
The Lemon & Duke policy | 38 |
The factors to be borne in mind in construing the FBD policy | 52 |
The relevant factual background | 54 |
The COVID-19 pandemic | 63 |
The regulatory context | 77 |
Relevant aspects of the IPID and the Features & Benefits document | 82 |
The terms of the policy | 83 |
What is the insured peril? | 97 |
Is the cover available limited to closures arising solely from localised outbreaks? | 111 |
The meaning of the word “following” | 118 |
The meaning of the word “by” | 138 |
The meaning of “outbreak” | 139 |
The ambit of cover available under Extension (1) (d) | 140 |
Causation | 142 |
Were the outbreaks within a 25 mile radial distance of the plaintiffs premises a cause of the government imposed closure? | 143 |
Would the result be any different if “following” is to be interpreted as requiring proximate cause? | 147 |
Further causation issues | 154 |
Was the composite peril the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' losses? | 154 |
The additional causation issues argued by FBD | 156 |
“But for” causation | 159 |
The appropriate counterfactual | 166 |
Disaggregation | 175 |
Trends and circumstances | 178 |
The evidence of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Lewis | 191 |
The indemnity period | 196 |
The claim for aggravated damages by the Lemon & Duke plaintiff | 202 |
The new claim advanced by the Lemon & Duke plaintiff in its January 2021 submissions | 210 |
Conclusion | 210 |
. The principal question which arises in each of these four cases is whether the defendant insurer ( ‘FBD’) is obliged to cover any of the losses suffered by the plaintiffs following the imposed closure of public houses at the behest of the Government on 15th March, 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic began to take hold in Ireland. Each of the plaintiffs hold policies of insurance issued by FBD in advance of 15th March, 2020. If it is concluded that FBD has a liability to the plaintiffs under the respective policies of insurance, a further issue arises as to the extent of the cover available under the policies.
. Because these issues arise in each of the four cases, they were heard together over a period of eleven days in October 2020. It is hoped that the ultimate outcome of these cases will assist in the resolution of a large number of similar claims which have been brought against FBD on foot of similarly worded policies of insurance issued by FBD. Each of the policies in question contain the same standard wording found in the FBD Public House Insurance policy which was designed specifically for the insurance needs of the public house trade.
. According to the evidence of the Chief Underwriting Officer of FBD, the policy in question has been sold to approximately 1,300 publicans throughout Ireland ranging from the owners of small rural pubs to larger urban pubs. She gave evidence that roughly 84% of policies were sold directly to publicans through FBD direct sales channels with the remaining 16% being sold through brokers. This should be seen against the backdrop that, as explained further below, FBD had a long standing relationship with the Vintners Federation of Ireland ( ‘VFI’). The VFI is one of two organisations representing publicans in Ireland and is traditionally associated with pubs outside the greater Dublin area. Within the greater Dublin area, the predominant organisation representing publicans is the Licensed Vintners Association ( ‘LVA’). FBD has, for some time, also been the sponsor of the LVA annual general meeting and the dinner which traditionally takes place after that meeting.
. The FBD policy (which will be examined in more detail below) provides cover in respect of a range of different risks as described in ss. 1–8 of the policy terms not all of which are relevant for present purposes. At this point, it is sufficient to note that s.1 provides cover in respect of accidental loss or damage to buildings, s.2 provides cover in respect of trade contents and s.3 provides a form of business interruption cover. In particular, s.3 covers consequential loss to the public house business arising from loss or damage to the buildings (covered under s. 1) or to the trade contents (covered under s. 2). Section 3 also provides cover in respect of losses arising from the imposed closure of the premises by order of a government or local authority following the occurrence of a number of specified circumstances including “outbreaks of contagious or infectious diseases on the premises or within 25 miles of same”. At its most basic level, the dispute between the parties relates to the proper interpretation of s.3 of the policy. In each of these cases, FBD has declined cover in respect of the plaintiffs' losses on the grounds that the imposed closure did not arise in consequence of an outbreak of COVID-19 on any of the plaintiffs' premises or within a 25-mile radius of the premises....
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Marshall and Others v Electricity Supply Board and Others
...the decision of the Supreme Court in Re Wogan's (Drogheda) Ltd [1993] 1 I.R. 157 and also citing Hyper Trust Ltd v FBD Insurance PLC [2021] IEHC 78 (High Court (General), McDonald J, 5 February 2021) Coachhouse Catering Ltd v Frost Insurances Ltd et al [2022] IEHC 306 (High Court (General),......
-
Chubb European Group SE [Formerly Ace European] v Perrigo Company Plc
...Holdings Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2003] 2 IR 114 per Hardiman J.; Maguire v Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 285 197 Hyper Trust Ltd v FBD Insurance PLC [2021] IEHC 78 (High Court (General), McDonald J, 5 February 198 Coachhouse Catering Ltd v Frost Insurances Ltd et al [2022] IEHC 306 (High Court (Genera......
-
Marlin Apartments Ltd Trading as Marlin Hotel Dublin v Allianz Plc
...word “event” given in Axa Reinsurance v. Field has already been accepted and applied in an insurance context in Ireland in Hyper Trust Ltd. v. FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 78 (“ Hyper Trust No. 1”) and in Brushfield Ltd. v. Arachas Corporate Brokers Ltd. [2021] IEHC 263 (“ Brushfield”). ......
-
Swiss Re International Se v LCA Marrickville Pty Limited (Second COVID-19 insurance test cases)
...2 NSWR 434 HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Hartnett [2016] NSWCA 342 Hyper Trust Limited t/as the Leopards Town Inn & Ors v FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 78 Hyper Trust Limited t/as the Leopards Town Inn & Ors v FBD Insurance plc (No 2) [2021] IEHC 279 In re an Arbitration between Calf and the Sun ......
-
High Court Rejects Appeal That FSPO Exceeded Its Jurisdiction
...of law as to proper interpretation of the insurance contract? In considering this question, the Court, citing Hyper Trust v FBD Insurance [2021] IEHC 78, found that if the insured peril is "an effective cause" of the damage arising, then it suffices in insurance law. The Court found that as......
-
To BII Or Not To BII ' A Cayman Islands Perspective
...pub owners on BII claims against Irish insurer, FBD Insurance plc. The case is reported as Hyper Trust Limited et al v FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 78. As we discussed in our November 2020 article on this topic, these English and Irish judgments are not binding as a matter of Cayman Island......
-
To BII or not to BII – a Cayman Islands perspective
...pub owners on BII claims against Irish insurer, FBD Insurance plc. The case is reported as Hyper Trust Limited et al v FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 78. As we discussed in our November 2020 article on this topic, these English and Irish judgments are not binding as a matter of Cayman Island......
-
A Contemporary Review of Causation in Marine Insurance
...butfor test’s capability of handling cases of concurrent causation, as academically there are two 110 Hyper Trust Ltd v FBD Insurance Plc [2021] IEHC 78, 174 111 FCA Test (n 91), 308 112 Orient Express Hotels (n 55) 113 [1863] 14 C.B. N.S. 259, 285 114 Özlem Gürses, ‘The Proximate Cause of ......
-
Foreword
...the necessity for such changes in light 5 6 7 8 [1950] 1 IR 142. Hyper Trust Limited t/a The Leopardstown Inn and Ors v FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 78. Re New Look Retailers (Ireland) Ltd [2020] IEHC [2021] UKSC 3. Foreword xiii of issues surrounding access to courts and redress from thos......
-
Case notes - Covid in the Courts: The FBD Test Case
...views or opinions expressed in this article are the personal views and opinions of the author. 1 Dáil Deb 11 February 2021, vol 1004. 2 [2021] IEHC 78. 3 The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch and Others [2020] EWHC 2448 The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch and Others [2021] UKSC 1. 5 Cen......