To think this FB post is incredibly irresponsible!

[QueenLucyPevensie]

I can’t believe what I’m seeing... a few pubs on FB are sharing this post encouraging people to keep coming. I don’t know where to begin with the stupidity here... (see attached pic) Yes in times of “crisis” we usually all go to the pub - arguably unless that “crisis” is a viral disease?! 🤦🏻‍♀️

Am I being unreasonable, is this completely irresponsible?

beetroot et al Its on their twitter here at the bottom

@PlainBritishFlour
Why the hell are nightclubs staying open and more to the point, why are idiots still going to them?

@Ilovemypantry because money.

And because the British public are thick as pig shit.

Vue Cinemas have closed.

Fireball thanks

But

1. Can I have a proper link and
2. Ensuring businesses can claim on appropriate insurance is VERY vague indeed. Like, super vague

Ilove

Round here I guess it's because
You're in v densely populated city
You're probably youngish so low risk / got that young indestructible mindset
If you're going on the tube/ mixing with loads of people at work/ seems silly that the fun stuff is a no go

Is my guess

@BeetrootRocks
Still incredibly irresponsible and stupid

Well but that's people isn't it

Any reasonable strategy should take into account what people are actually like

Beetroot - no I don't but if you re watch yesterdays PM report Rishi Sunak does say that about the insurance.

I shouldn't really have to provide evidence of anything - if you watch the (yesterdays for this) reports - and you would be wise to, they contain important info it does say.

and if the no 10 twitter feed isn't confirmation I can' say more. I think they are abit otherwise engaged at the moment.

@BeetrootRocks

Listen here from 37:07 to the question asked by George Barker from the FT. The answer is from 38:26.

What Boris is saying is that the Chancellor met with the insurers (probably their trade body ABI and/or reps from individual insurers) and they have agreed that they will treat the government advice to avoid bars/restaurants/unnecessary shops etc as tantamount to a mandatory closure when it comes to considering whether a policy will pay out.

In practical terms, it works like this: insurance policy wordings cannot anticipate every single situation and inevitably it is sometimes unclear whether or not a particular claim should be covered. It's highly unlikely that any policy wording would be specific enough to draw a clear distinction between mandatory closure and the results of the current government action. If the insurer and insured cannot come to an agreement as to how the policy wording should be construed, the insured can take the insurer to court. The court will look at all the evidence of what happened and the case law that supports a particular interpretation of the policy wording. So, for example, the policy might say there is cover for "all losses arising out of closure of your business as a result of government policy" (this is a made-up example). Here, it could be argued that the closure was not as a result of the policy, it was a result of the owner's decision to close. However the insured would argue that it had no option but to close because the government's policy made the business completely unsustainable. The court would look at whether the insured's behaviour was reasonable in all the circumstances (using case law as a guide) and whether the wording could be construed as covering the loss.

What happened yesterday was that the government asked the insurers not to split hairs and try to argue that there had to be a direct government order to close in order to pay out. You are right that a policy of insurance is a private commercial agreement between insurer and insured so the government can't directly order the insurers to pay. However they the fact that the government is saying that its advice has the same business impact as a mandatory closure all forms part of the overall factual background that will be taken into account when interpreting the policy. What is more, the insurers have probably been given some incentive not to argue the finer points of coverage in such cases and may even have signed an agreement not to do so. If they go back on their word then the govt could sanction them.

However – and this is very important – the main reason that the insurers will have readily given this agreement is that the vast majority of policies will not have had any cover for coronavirus-related closure in the first place so they will still be paying out very little even if they do adopt a no-quibble approach to the ones that do offer this cover.

In summary:

1. It is a fallacy that the government stopped short of mandatory closure in order to protect insurers.

1. The vast majority of businesses never had cover for closure due to coronavirus in the first place. They are in a difficult position, but that position is not altered in any way because the government advised customers to stay away rather than ordering businesses to close. Yesterday's agreement does not mean that insurers will pay those businesses.

1. For the few businesses that did have cover for closure due to coronavirus, insurers have agreed that they will not seek to decline cover on the basis of drawing a distinction between mandatory closure and government advice to customers to stay away.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of how all the various elements all fit together.