Clare Barrowman

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff consulting firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmaceutical company for unpaid invoices totaling $506,198.70 related to expert litigation services provided in a UK proceeding.

The defendant argued the fees exceeded litigation budgets and were unreasonable, and that the plaintiff was estopped from relying on a five-day notice of objection provision in the retainer agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the budgets were not part of the contract, no timely written objections were made, and there was no evidence of promissory estoppel.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed, with pre-judgment interest capped at 5% per year under the Interest Act.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.