insurance | In Principle

Even before a state of epidemic threat was announced, some businesses anticipating the probable impact of the approaching pandemic decided to take out business interruption insurance. But can this type of coverage make up for at least some of the losses due to the pandemic?

In a judgment involving damages under an insurance policy, the Supreme Court of Poland indicates how to calculate the amount of damages, and discusses various possible methods of monetary compensation for property damage in cases involving an insurer’s liability.

The unstable economic situation connected with the COVID-19 pandemic is also impacting the insurance industry. Dependent on global phenomena and trends, the insurance market will soon have to face a new economic reality, develop appropriate solutions for clients, and prepare to defend against claims.

The COVID-19 pandemic affects the situation of companies and individuals. Many of them wonder whether they will be able to take advantage of insurance cover they have taken out. The insurance industry is wondering the same thing.

A range of legislative and legal initiatives have been taken in recent days to control the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus epidemic. How will temporary closing of borders and mandatory hospitalisation impact carriers’ liability in international transport of goods by road?

According to the International Energy Agency, over a fourth of oil and gas supplies today come from the seas. Over the past couple of decades, extraction of natural gas from offshore deposits has risen by over 50%. There is also growing emphasis on offshore wind energy. Ventures of this type are technically complex, often innovative, and consequently costly. That is why fuel companies insure platforms, borings, and drilling equipment. What is important to pay attention to in such insurance policies? How to prepare for a potential dispute?

Will the amended civil procedure rules improve the litigation position of people suffering a loss in motor vehicle collisions?

In September, the British media published a documentary on Operation Yellowhammer, analysing the possible effects of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union without an agreement. The legal chaos caused by a hard Brexit could lead to several days of truck stoppages at the border, creating a risk of damage to perishable goods.

Properly determining the amount of damages sought for loss of health, where a party pursuing a claim for injury partly caused the loss, can be a problem even for professional representatives of such claimants. This is because this issue raises a number of grave practical concerns, addressed by the Supreme Court in a resolution of 11 April 2019 (III CZP 105/18), and also by other bodies.

Demand guarantees are among the most popular methods of securing international commercial transactions. They may be used to secure both the payment of fees and satisfactory performance of particular works. The popularity of these guarantees (sometimes also referred to as payment guarantees) can be attributed to the fact that they are issued by trustworthy and globally recognisable financial institutions (usually banks and insurance companies), and their operation is governed by universal rules well-understood in the business community. Guarantees are also independent of the underlying relationship between the parties, and the payment conditions are based on objective criteria, eliminating the potential for unexpected interpretations and actions by the parties. Given these factors, it is understandable that disputes regarding payment guarantees can usually be avoided. However, when they do occur, they usually involve substantial sums, with the potential to affect the financial liquidity of the companies involved.

The Act on Consideration of Complaints by Financial Market Entities and on the Financial Ombudsman provides that a complaint not resolved within the stated period “is regarded as” resolved in accordance with the customer’s request. In a surprising resolution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that this does not mean that a delay in consideration of a complaint mandates that it is resolved in the customer’s favour, but such a delay merely increases the burden faced by the entity during litigation. If, of course, the matter ever reaches the courts. Was this what the legislature intended?

Examples from the case law on automobile insurance