CP Holdings Limited & Ors v Assicurazioni Generali SpA & Ors

In a commercial insurance policy, a limit stated as applying to each and every loss is a per-loss limit, not an annual aggregate, unless the Schedule provides otherwise. A disease-extension sub-limit applies to each insured business-interruption loss covered by the extension. Whether there is one loss or several depends on the policy and the way insured businesses are declared; separate declared businesses may have separate losses even where the same disease and government measures caused the interruption. Composite-insured wording prevents multiplication of the limit where one declared business comprises operations of several insured companies. For disease-related business interruption, the indemnity period runs from the commencement of the interruption or interference and is capped at 36 months.

This further first-instance judgment followed the main judgment after a trial of preliminary issues: [2026] EWHC 1520 (Comm). The claimants, CP Holdings Limited and 14 others, sought declarations concerning the limits of cover under the 2018 Global Policy. The court had already determined that the failure of the rectification claim and the claims under the Hungarian and Romanian Policies would determine the overall outcome, but reserved jurisdiction to answer questions whose resolution might assist the parties.

The remaining issues concerned the Policy Loss Limit, the Disease Clause sub-limit, the maximum indemnity period, General Clause 5 and the operation of limits across multiple insureds, premises and locations. The central question was whether the relevant limits operated per loss or as annual aggregate limits.

Declarations granted. The answers did not alter the overall outcome of the claims, because the rectification claim had failed, but the court considered it just and convenient to determine the reserved questions.

1. Policy Loss Limit. The €150 million Policy Loss Limit was a limit applying to each insured loss, with property damage and business interruption combined for that loss. It was not an annual aggregate limit and was not a limit per insured, property or business. Wording elsewhere providing that liability in an insurance period should not exceed a scheduled limit did not convert a per-loss limit into an annual aggregate. The Schedule determined whether an aggregate limit existed. General Clause 5 did not create such a limit or establish any presumption that one was intended.
2. Disease Clause sub-limit. The €10 million sub-limit was a limit for each insured business-interruption loss covered by the Disease Clause. It was not an annual aggregate limit and did not operate as a single limit per insured or per declared business regardless of the number of separate losses.
3. Identifying separate losses. The question whether one or several insured losses occurred was not susceptible of much analysis in the abstract. The court agreed generally with the approach in Bath Racecourse Co Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm), including the significance of how the insured businesses were listed in the spreadsheet used to place the insurance. Each business declared separately could suffer a separate pure business-interruption loss, even where the same disease or government measure caused the interruption.
4. Maximum indemnity period. The property-damage-based definitions of Indemnity Period and Maximum Indemnity Period required necessary adaptation to give the Disease Clause meaningful effect. For Disease Clause losses, the period began when interruption or interference with the insured business commenced and continued while the business results were affected, subject to the maximum of 36 months.
5. Composite insureds and aggregation. General Clause 5 meant that, where the spreadsheet declared operations of multiple insured companies as one business, the €10 million Disease Clause sub-limit applied to that business as a whole and was not multiplied by the number of companies. Limits and the maximum indemnity period operated across multiple insureds or locations only where the spreadsheet declared their operations or undertakings as a single business. The policy contained no annual aggregate limit for all Disease Clause claims.

This further first-instance judgment followed the main judgment after the preliminary-issues trial: [2026] EWHC 1520 (Comm) . Jurisdiction was reserved to answer specified questions and grant declarations.