The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd's for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account v Pro 2 Care Limited
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWHC 1921 (Comm)
Court: High Court (Commercial Court)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
This judgment concerns whether a combined Property Damage & Business Interruption policy provided BI cover for Pro 2 Care after water damage prevented the opening of its premises. The court declared on summary judgment that the Policy did not provide BI cover (and dismissed Pro 2 Care's declaratory counterclaim) because the Schedule omitted any BI sums/indemnity period and there was no operating business at the premises producing Gross Revenue when the damage occurred. The court refused summary judgment on Pro 2 Care's separate counterclaim under the Insurance Act/implied term for unreasonable delay in payment of property-damage sums, directing that factual issues on delay and loss go to trial.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: high
Where a combined Property Damage and Business Interruption section is used, an ordinary policyholder is entitled to look to the Schedule for the operative details (such as sums insured and indemnity period); the absence of any Business Interruption sums or a maximum indemnity period in the Schedule supports the conclusion that BI cover was not provided. Further, BI indemnity clauses that quantify loss by reference to Gross Revenue presuppose an existing income‑generating business at the insured premises; absent such a business, the mechanism for quantification cannot operate and BI cover will not respond unless the policy expressly provides otherwise.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The judgment distinguishes BI cover from specialist Delay in Start Up/Advanced Loss of Profits (DSU/ALOP) cover, which addresses delayed openings by different mechanics (for example, indemnity periods tied to the date operations would have begun). It also notes that pre-contractual materials and broker communications may form part of the factual matrix but cannot override clear omissions in the written Schedule.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from the beginning and end of a long judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted; material factual and legal reasoning relevant to the court’s detailed analysis and findings was not provided.