Claim rejected
The insurer says the event did not trigger the business interruption section or falls within an exclusion.
Business interruption claim support
If your business interruption claim has been rejected, delayed or calculated too low, we can examine the policy trigger, insurer’s reasoning, financial evidence and loss calculation before explaining the strongest realistic route forward.
Where interruption claims go wrong
A disagreement may begin with the event that triggered cover or arise later when the insurer, loss adjuster and business calculate the financial effect. The coverage question and the value of the loss need to be tested separately.
The insurer says the event did not trigger the business interruption section or falls within an exclusion.
There is disagreement about insured damage, prevention of access, utilities, suppliers, customers or another extension.
The settlement does not appear to reflect the insured reduction in turnover, gross profit or other covered loss.
The insurer argues that the interruption ended earlier than the business’s operational or financial evidence indicates.
Historic performance, market conditions or later events are used to reduce the expected results of the business.
Repeated information requests, changing calculations or unresolved expert questions prevent a clear decision or payment.
Cover first, calculation second
A detailed spreadsheet cannot resolve an incorrect coverage decision, and an accepted policy trigger does not prove that the proposed settlement is accurate. Both parts of the claim require their own evidence and reasoning.
The starting point is the complete policy: the interruption section, relevant extension, definitions, exclusions, conditions, schedule and endorsements. These are then applied to the actual cause and circumstances.
Once cover is established, the policy’s formula is applied to reliable accounting and operational evidence. The aim is to model the insured position the business would probably have achieved without the incident.
Testing the insurer’s calculation
Small changes to assumptions can produce a substantial difference. Each adjustment should be tied to the policy formula and supported by evidence, rather than inserted simply because it reduces the claim.
The benchmark period and seasonal pattern should fairly represent the business before the incident.
The policy definition may differ from the gross profit shown in management or statutory accounts.
Growth, decline, contracts, capacity and market conditions may affect the results expected without the loss.
The relevant period may extend beyond physical reinstatement while turnover or operations continue to recover.
Reasonable expenditure used to maintain operations or reduce lost turnover must be analysed under the wording.
Saved costs, deductibles, sub-limits, declared values and underinsurance can all affect the final figure.
Building an evidence-led claim
The right evidence depends on the insurer’s position. A focused review links the policy, incident, operational disruption and financial calculation so that each disputed assumption can be identified and tested.
Schedule, wording, endorsements, proposal, declared values, renewal material and relevant broker correspondence.
Incident reports, expert evidence, closure dates, damaged assets, dependencies, mitigation steps and recovery records.
Accounts, management information, VAT returns, sales data, budgets, forecasts, contracts, payroll and cost records.
Reservation or rejection letters, information requests, adjuster reports, calculation models, assumptions and settlement offers.
Looking beyond the headline figure
A covered incident can affect sales, margins, staffing, premises, suppliers, production and customer relationships at the same time. The claim should allocate each element to the correct policy section without omission or duplication.
The purpose is not to exaggerate the loss. It is to ensure the calculation follows the actual wording, uses defensible counterfactual assumptions and recognises reasonable action taken to protect the business.
A proportionate route forward
FCA claims-handling rules require insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly, provide reasonable guidance and progress information, not unreasonably reject claims and settle promptly once settlement terms are agreed.
We identify the policy trigger, disputed assumptions, missing evidence and the parts of the financial model that materially affect value.
The next step may involve focused information, revised calculations, structured correspondence, negotiation or a formal complaint.
Depending on eligibility and circumstances, options may include the Financial Ombudsman Service, litigation support or a specialist barrister.
Business interruption claims
Practical answers about rejected, delayed and underpaid business interruption insurance claims.
Cover depends on the policy. It commonly responds to an insured reduction in turnover or gross profit following defined insured damage, while some policies include extensions for access, utilities, suppliers, customers or other events.
Potentially. The stated reason should be compared with the complete wording, the actual cause and circumstances of the interruption and the available factual, technical and financial evidence.
The method depends on the policy formula. It may use turnover or revenue, an insured gross-profit rate, an indemnity period, trends and variations, increased costs, savings, deductibles and policy limits.
Not necessarily. A policy may define gross profit using a specific formula that does not match the figure presented in statutory or management accounts. The definition must be applied to the underlying financial data.
Broadly, it is the period during which the insured interruption loss is measured, subject to the policy definition and maximum period. Its end is not always the same as the date physical repairs are completed.
Trends or other-circumstances wording adjusts the benchmark so the calculation better reflects the results the business would probably have achieved without the insured incident. The adjustment should be supported by evidence.
Potentially, where the policy covers reasonable expenditure incurred to maintain operations or avoid or reduce an insured loss. The wording may contain economic tests, sub-limits and separate additional-increased-cost provisions.
The declared value, sum insured, maximum indemnity period, valuation basis and any average clause should be checked. It may also be relevant to examine how the figures were calculated and what advice was provided.
Some businesses, charities and trusts may be eligible. Eligibility, complaint-stage requirements, award limits and time limits depend on the organisation and circumstances, so they should be checked for the particular case.
Start with the policy schedule and wording, the insurer’s latest decision or calculation, key adjuster or expert reports and the principal financial material supporting the claimed interruption loss.