Commercial Court refuses to rectify policy in EUR 160m Covid-19 hotel claim

29/06/26

On 29 June 2026, Andrew Baker J handed down judgment following a preliminary issues trial, dismissing all claims in CP Holdings Limited and Ors v Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Ors [2026] EWHC 1520 (Comm).

The Claimants operated hotels, spas, restaurants and offices across the UK, Czechia, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary.  The Claimants sought indemnity from the Defendant insurers for business interruption losses sustained during the Covid-19 pandemic in the sum of approximately €160m under a Master Global Policy and Hungarian and Romanian local policies.

It was common ground at trial that business interruption losses arising from Covid-19 were excluded under the 2019 Global policy.  The Claimants argued that at the time of the 2019 renewal their broker, Aon UK, agreed with the Defendants that the 2019 Global Policy would conform to (or be no less favourable to the insured than) the 2018 Global Policy.  The Claimants sought rectification of the 2019 Global Policy to that effect.

After careful consideration of the authorities dealing with rectification, the Court found that the pleaded rectification claim was “odd, and distinctly unpersuasive” and “obviously unsustainable”.  The Court found that Aon UK did not press for a general conformity term.  The assurance that Aon UK believed it had was “a long way from what…[the First Defendant] had actually offered”.

The Court heard expert evidence on virology and epidemiology from Sir John Bell, Professor Keith Neal and Professor Julian Hiscox.  Had it mattered, the Court held that the exclusion in the 2018 Global Policy relating to “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Avian Flu, and/or atypical pneumonia, or fear of threat”, did not exclude from cover losses caused by Covid-19.

The Court also rejected claims advanced under the Hungarian and Romanian local policies.  Properly construed, those policies did not cover business interruption losses other than losses arising consequent on property damage.  The Hungarian and Romanian policies were respectively “clear and unambiguous” and “not sensibility capable of any other reading”.

The judgment is here.