High Court backs Bath Racecourse in landmark Covid BI ruling

The UK’s High Court of Justice has ruled in favour of Bath Racecourse and 21 other claimants in the latest stage of a long-running, Covid-19 related business interruption (BI) litigation, confirming that commercial policyholders with multiple premises may be entitled to multiple limits of indemnity under the same policy wording.

Handed down on 22 July 2025 by deputy judge Sean O’Sullivan, the decision in Bath Racecourse Co and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE and others clarified how “any one loss” limits should be construed where insureds operate multiple facilities under a composite BI policy. Defendants in this specific case included Liberty Mutual, Allianz and Aviva.

The policyholders – part of the Arena Racing Company – own and operate racecourses, greyhound tracks, hotels, golf clubs and a pub. They claimed BI losses stemming from government mandated business closures and industry specific restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic back in 2020 and 2021.

The judgment affirmed that each of the group’s individual premises or “facilities” was entitled to its own set of applicable indemnity limits. This marked a win for commercial policyholders insured under policies that contain similar wordings, potentially unlocking greater recoveries where operations span multiple locations.

March 2026 is the deadline for filing Covid-19 linked BI claims. Some cases are still ongoing, such as litigation against insurer Beazley.

James Breese, partner at Stewarts Law – which acted for the claimants in the Bath Racecourse case – said: “We welcome [this] judgment and the further clarification that businesses with multiple premises may have their own separate limits and sublimits of indemnity.

”It is pleasing that these issues continue to largely be determined in favour of policyholders.”

Liberty Mutual, Allianz and Aviva all declined to comment when approached by Insurance Times. 

Nearing the finishing line

A 2023 decision by Mr Justice Richard Jacobs had already confirmed that the denial of access clause under the Arena Racing Company’s policy had been triggered and that each claimant was entitled to a separate £2.5m per loss limit. The Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in February 2025 and earlier this month (July 2025), the Supreme Court granted permission to hear one remaining issue relating to the treatment of furlough payments.

This latest High Court ruling, however, addressed several technical questions, including whether instructions by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) and Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) amounted to actions performed by a “competent authority” capable of triggering cover, how “any one loss” limits apply across multiple locations and whether the policy’s arbitration clause barred proceedings in the English courts.

O’Sullivan concluded that although BHA and GBGB are private entities, their authority to restrict access and suspend events amounted to sufficient control under the denial of access policy wording. He also rejected insurers’ arguments that the arbitration clause excluded court jurisdiction, ruling that it was not triggered at the outset and could not operate retrospectively.

The judgment also noted that a 2019 spreadsheet used in the underwriting process indicated varying maximum indemnity periods for different facilities – 12 months for racecourses, 24 for golf clubs and 36 for hotels. Although the 2020 spreadsheet was missing, the court found it likely that the approach remained consistent year-on-year.

From a broader market perspective, the ruling reaffirmed the significance of accurate risk presentation documentation and reinforced judicial adherence to the FCA v Arch test case standard – that policy wordings should be interpreted through the eyes of a reasonable SME policyholder.

The further quantification of losses related to the Bath Racecourse case – including claim preparation costs, increased cost of working and revenue reduction – will follow in due course.

The case marks another step in a growing body of case law defining insurer liability for Covid BI claims, particularly for businesses with diverse portfolios and complex operational footprints.