In the latest edition of Sullivan's webinar series, Marian Boyle, Head of Insurance and Dispute Resolution at Sullivan's London office discussed the key clauses found in comprehensive non-payment insurance (NPI) policies. She gave practical advice for policyholders on what to look out for in NPI wordings and provided examples of how the duties NPI policies impose can impact on the operation of the underlying credit risk they insure.

NPI policies provide an indemnity in the event of non-payment for any reason (save for those expressly excluded). If appropriately drafted, NPI policies permit policyholders to manage risks and to expand their financing capacity/offering using these highly effective credit support instruments.

The legal landscape

While NPI policies are subject to general English contract law principles, they are also governed by a body of statutes and common law principles peculiar to insurance contracts. How these rules operate in practice is not always evident from a plain reading of the contract. Thus, when taking out NPI, understanding the legal framework within which all such policies operate is vital for ensuring that the risk transfer relied upon is as robust as possible.

As with other English contracts, any NPI policy must be interpreted objectively by asking what a reasonable person, with all the background knowledge which would reasonably be available to the parties when they entered into the contract, would have understood the language of the contract to mean. Evidence about what a party subjectively intended, or understood the contract to mean, is not relevant.

The insuring clause

The insuring clause describes the risk that insurers will cover. It always needs to be read in conjunction with the policy exclusions (see below). It is important that it is clear when a loss will be considered to have occurred.

It is equally important to ensure that the trigger for insurers’ indemnity is appropriate for the financing transaction that is being covered. The trigger for loss in respect of non-payment under a term loan is very different from structures where the insured is participating between the direct lender and the policyholder. Similarly, if what is being insured are potential losses under a receivables purchase agreement, the loss trigger will need to be drafted differently.

Exclusion clauses set out the circumstances in which coverage will not be provided, even if losses would otherwise fall within the scope of the insuring clause. NPI policies might, for example, exclude cover where the non-payment is caused by a breach by the policyholder of some term of the financing agreement, or where the loss is caused by the fraudulent or illegal act of the policyholder.

Whilst the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) may be 25 years old this year, the key aims behind the Act, including that of upholding the finality of the award, continue to be reinforced by the courts. Last week the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary published the 11^th edition of the Commercial Court Guide. As well as introducing a number of changes reflecting the impact of Covid-19, the amendments made notable changes to section O (Arbitration), consistent with the arbitration-friendly approach the English courts steadfastly adopt, in supporting the finality of arbitral awards and discouraging speculative challenges.

Greater clarity for policyholders suffering business interruption losses due to Covid-19 — the FCA test case

Most commercial insurance policies are taken out in the expectation that a claim will never be necessary. For the most part, this expectation is borne out by experience, with the result that when the loss or damage occurs, policyholders are often unprepared for the claims process and are unsure about the obligations they will be expected to perform.

This article provides some practical tips for commercial policyholders to consider when a claim arises, along with recommendations to help smooth the claims process.