We have Business Interruption insurance for losses caused by COVID-19

DeeGer10 said:
%^*& Dundee anyway but I'm sure I read a statement which said they had cover and it was refused.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are trying everything they can to wriggle out of paying out under business interruption insurance.

Worth remembering as well that insurance policies almost always have a cap on the payout, and maximum compensation is largely decided by the amount of premium that the policyholder was paying rather than the loss suffered.

Total coronavirus cost to us as a business will probably end up north of £20m but we would have to be paying millions a year in premium to get it all covered, which obviously wont be the case. Dundee and other clubs will be in a similar position on a smaller scale.
 
Tugay83 said:
Insurance companies are trying everything they can to wriggle out of paying out under business interruption insurance.

Worth remembering as well that insurance policies almost always have a cap on the payout, and maximum compensation is largely decided by the amount of premium that the policyholder was paying rather than the loss suffered.

Total coronavirus cost to us as a business will probably end up north of £20m but we would have to be paying millions a year in premium to get it all covered, which obviously wont be the case. Dundee and other clubs will be in a similar position on a smaller scale.
Click to expand...
I`m sure that we would rather get something back from the insurers & at least cover some of our losses than be like most of the teams out there with no cover & losing money on a weekly basis
 
Every club has business interruption insurance.

As mentioned the ongoing legal case to determine what insurance companies are obliged to pay is for all businesses.

Guessing a small proportion of the disruption is covered under our policy.
I don't see anything to be overly happy about, unless we have specific pandemic insurance
 
So how is it expected to work ? And how much of the losses is it expected to cover ? Do we still need the 24 m to get through the next 2 season or does this cover the majority of if ?
 
No-one is giving a thought to sporting integrity here.

The paedo club will be scanning the small print looking for a loophole to declare it “illegal” and, as in the case of EBT’s, state that it gives us an unfair sporting advantage.

I jest of course - but wouldn’t put it past them!
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
there might be another 4. There was an intial report that only 6 of all SPFL (4 divisions) clubs might have insurance.

Dundee said they had, no one else did.

Our accounts show we are definitely one off. Not sure on other 4 as not in their accounts or I have not read.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that reference to and a note in the accounts would have been required either way. I’m not an accountant and I find the ever changing accounting standards make annual reports harder for the layman to understand. However within Risk Management you would expect to see comment and steps taken. I think that it’s a reasonable assumption to think no comment in the accounts, no cover.

I suppose my only concern would be Insurance is renewable annually and whither or not Insurers will make cover available on renewal.
 
Grant K said:
I would have thought that reference to and a note in the accounts would have been required either way. I’m not an accountant and I find the ever changing accounting standards make annual reports harder for the layman to understand. However within Risk Management you would expect to see comment and steps taken. I think that it’s a reasonable assumption to think no comment in the accounts, no cover.

I suppose my only concern would be Insurance is renewable annually and whither or not Insurers will make cover available on renewal.
Click to expand...

if you analyse the wording from mr Park.

The Group has submitted a claim on its Business Interruption insurance for losses caused by COVID-19, the curtailment of the 2019/20 season and the ongoing pandemic, which continues to impact a number of revenue streams and the use of the Stadium. The scale and timing of any claim is uncertain, however we have recognised amounts received from our insurers against our claim to date.

It is very clear that amounts received in our 2019/20 accounts are not final and are indeed ongoing.
 
Grant K said:
I would have thought that reference to and a note in the accounts would have been required either way. I’m not an accountant and I find the ever changing accounting standards make annual reports harder for the layman to understand. However within Risk Management you would expect to see comment and steps taken. I think that it’s a reasonable assumption to think no comment in the accounts, no cover.

I suppose my only concern would be Insurance is renewable annually and whither or not Insurers will make cover available on renewal.
Click to expand...
And if so at what hiked premium ?:(
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
if you analyse the wording from mr Park.

The Group has submitted a claim on its Business Interruption insurance for losses caused by COVID-19, the curtailment of the 2019/20 season and the ongoing pandemic, which continues to impact a number of revenue streams and the use of the Stadium. The scale and timing of any claim is uncertain, however we have recognised amounts received from our insurers against our claim to date.

It is very clear that amounts received in our 2019/20 accounts are not final and are indeed ongoing.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. But the policy renewal date may mean that cover straddles two seasons and/or two reporting periods. Neither of these points would confirm or otherwise that the cover will be available following renewal.
 
in this thread and other thread we seem to be upsetting some. ;-)

Our accounts show we have received an Insurance claim of (1,250) to date of which Mr Park has said is against our claim to date.

Those saying all clubs will be claiming this, show me their 19/20 accounts and money received from disruption insurance! And I will repeat mr Parks words, The scale and timing of any claim is uncertain.

Payment of (1,250) is an initial payment to June 30th.
 
This sort of thing gives me a nice warm feeling of comfort we actually have a board who know what they are doing not making it up as they go. Even forward thinking for a change, well done.
 
Good to know. Presume the test case at the high court in September may have a significant impact going forward, plus once the outcome of the Supreme Court is known.

I think all top flight clubs in Scotland would have had some form of business interruption, but the policy wording to cover this pandemic is the issue. Glad that we seem to be one of the few clubs benefiting from cover.
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
Just passing it on, on its own thread!

Happy days fellow bears, nae luck timmy

Claim ongoing.
Click to expand...
High court test case last week don’t think courts have made determining yet, think it is supported by insurers so as to provide legal standard in a hitherto unforeseen set of circumstance
 
Chiefbromden said:
High court test case last week don’t think courts have made determining yet, think it is supported by insurers so as to provide legal standard in a hitherto unforeseen set of circumstance
Click to expand...
Paying out on some claims already would be a good sign surely? Anybody work in insurance, could perhaps let us know if if it would be normal for some claims to be paid and some not but all under the same clause
 
Grant K said:
Yes, agreed. But the policy renewal date may mean that cover straddles two seasons and/or two reporting periods. Neither of these points would confirm or otherwise that the cover will be available following renewal.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies usually cover the claim if it’s started in the year. It’ll be one ongoing claim imo.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
Insurance companies usually cover the claim if it’s started in the year. It’ll be one ongoing claim imo.
Click to expand...

A fair point that may tie into the comment in the accounts. An initial claim setting the validity of the cover with a further claim once the pandemic is finished for a value yet to be determined.
 
Do we know who the Insurers for Rangers are - does appear to be positive that pay,ets of so,e sort have already occurred but it also seems probable that total cover received would have a cap . Hopefully very high in our policy .
 
ChildOfGod said:
Do we know who the Insurers for Rangers are - does appear to be positive that pay,ets of so,e sort have already occurred but it also seems probable that total cover received would have a cap . Hopefully very high in our policy .
Click to expand...
There doesn't have to be a cap, but similar to your car insurance there will have been an excess. An insurance policy normally runs for 12 months. Once that period has expired the insurance company is under no obligation to either offer the same cover or the same level of cover in the following period.
 
andrewmont1 said:
It was in The High Court this week. The FCA has led the action against insurers refusing or part paying claims. Decision in Jan or Feb.
Click to expand...
Straight to the supreme court .All parties recognised that whoever lost would appeal to the supreme anyhow so they got leap frogging the high court due to that and the urgency of many businesses for timely funding
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
Just passing it on, on its own thread!

Happy days fellow bears, nae luck timmy

Claim ongoing.
Click to expand...
I’m Sure there is a high court case right now about this issue not specifically us but insurance companies trying avoid paying out something to do with this being a pandemic or act of God?
 
Local Insurers in SA have started to pay losses following local Court Cases, one of which has been mentioned in a recent UK case.
Locally most Policies have a limit of 18 months indemnity period.
I cannot see the excesses as being excessive, and the insurers may have cover with their Reinsurers.
Will be interesting what develops on this.
 
Bobans27 said:
Need a good lawyer to enforce the cover, insurance companies have been quite imaginative getting out of pandemic cover thus far....
Click to expand...
The Wimbledon Tennis Championships were covered by this type of insurance this year. The insurers have had to stump up circa £100 million.
 
Very much depends on the content and the wording of the policy. If we have already received a payment of £1.25m it would appear to be very positive and it may now be the clubs obligation to prove actual losses as a consequence of Covid.

In construction contracts we generally have provision for war, pandemics, strikes, weather, fire and government action amongst other issues. Never did we I think we’d need to really pay attention to this clause, however it shows how important this standard insertion is.
 
last minute signing said:
Very much depends on the content and the wording of the policy. If we have already received a payment of £1.25m it would appear to be very positive and it may now be the clubs obligation to prove actual losses as a consequence of Covid.

In construction contracts we generally have provision for war, pandemics, strikes, weather, fire and government action amongst other issues. Never did we I think we’d need to really pay attention to this clause, however it shows how important this standard insertion is.
Click to expand...

I would imagine as Mr Park has said its ongoing and our final claim will be made when all losses are accounted.

I agree a very positive step that so much money already has been paid for accounts to the 30th of June.

No doubt this year we will have made far more of a loss and its great to know the claim is ongoing as per Mr Parks quote.
 
bob1873 said:
I’m Sure there is a high court case right now about this issue not specifically us but insurance companies trying avoid paying out something to do with this being a pandemic or act of God?
Click to expand...
Was it not something to do with the insurers for hospitality saying something about the authorities closing business down but the loophole being citied was something to do with the fact it’s the police who are enforcing it on the advice of the government or something ridiculously silly like that?
 
Things I imagine something like this would cover.....
- lost income from ticket money (gate receipts from league and EL).
- lost income from hospitality and kiosk sales based on historic revenue.
- match day advertising?
- extra expenses i.e. resources and infrastructure to provide RTV commentary for ST holders.

If the above is true and no limit to payout and cover then COVID could merely be (without wanting to sound crass as there’s been huge loss of life) a cash flow issue for us and we’ll hopefully recover most of our losses if not all?

That would be an unexpected bonus and help us make inroads into financial gap between us and them.

The club should give ST holders the home top and say that and RTV access is what we got for our ST money and then claim insurance on lost ST money ha.
 
Number Six said:
Was it not something to do with the insurers for hospitality saying something about the authorities closing business down but the loophole being citied was something to do with the fact it’s the police who are enforcing it on the advice of the government or something ridiculously silly like that?
Click to expand...
Yes I think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top