Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman entitled to find that refusal of cover for closure of play centre was ‘unjust’
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses a statutory appeal from a decision of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) in finding the conduct of an insurer to have been 'unreasonable, unjust and otherwise improper' in refusing cover to a play centre which closed at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic on foot of a recommendation (rather than an instruction) from the Health Services Executive, on the grounds that: (a) it was conceded that the play centre was entitled to such cover; and (b) the FSPO had not been in error in finding that the decision was 'unreasonable, unjust and otherwise improper'.
Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) - appeal from decision of FSPO - Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act, 2017 - operator of play centre - closure of centre during pandemic - recommendation from HSE that centre close - claim for business interruption cover - refusal of indemnity - loss not caused by insured peril - whether restrictions or closure specific to policy holder's premises - lack of instruction from Health Service Executive to close centre - complaint to FSPO - complaint upheld - appeal - whether refusal of cover was unreasonable and unjust - whether decision of FSPO was vitiated by a serious and significant error or a series of such errors - direction to pay preliminary payment of claim in sum of €25K and compensation of €5K.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
