Public COVID-19 measures were not “damage” within meaning of insurance contract

Insurance - plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is entitled to an indemnity from the second named defendant pursuant to a policy of insurance - Business Interruption and Loss of Licence sections of policy – Covid 19 - test case - modular trial - policy interpretation – agreed facts - questions relevant to the loss of licence extension – expert evidence - preliminary comments about the policy documents - approach to be taken by a court in construing a policy of insurance – business interruption – definition of “damage” – no ambiguity – whether the term “DAMAGE” is defined in the terms of the words in parenthesis in s.2 of the policy – whether the definition requires physical damage to property in order to trigger cover – whether the public health measures introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic constitute damage - impossible to believe that the policy was not intended to provide business interruption insurance - something has gone wrong with the language used in s. 2 of the policy in so far as it refers to non-existent contingencies A to R - contractual interpretation - material damage proviso - there must be physical damage to property in order to trigger cover - the public health measures introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not constitute “DAMAGE” within the meaning of the contract - questions relating to the Loss of Licence Extension - what must happen to the licence to trigger cover - no forfeiture or withdrawal of the licence. - What is the policyholder required to establish in order to show that there has been a suspension of the licence – whether the public health measures constitute a suspension of the licence within the meaning of the extension - do any of the exclusions to the Loss of Licence Extension apply - claim would fall within the exception in respect of alterations in the law or statements of policy – application dismissed.