Insurance law
BIBA has guidance on the Insurance Act 2015 and Enterprise Act 2016
Read the Customer Factsheet
Avoiding under insurance
It is important for businesses to make sure that they have the right level of insurance and BIBA has a guide to help businesses assess how much cover they need.
Read our Guide on How to Avoiding Under Insurance
Protecting businesses from the costs of riots
The Home Office review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 contains both positives and negatives for businesses.
BIBA is pleased with many improvements being suggested by the consultation including the proposals about recognising riot areas, longer deadlines for making a claim, interim payment proposals and the discussion about new for old cover instead of indemnity.
However, there are areas where we are concerned for customers; for example the proposed cap on claiming compensation and not being able to recover an excess. The Home Office should not introduce a requirement that only businesses with a turnover of less than £2 million are eligible to claim. BIBA believes that any cut off should be based on a financial claim limit and that this Act should continue to protect all sizes of business.
BIBA believes the aim of the Act is to ensure that those that have suffered losses can receive compensation to enable them to be put back into a similar position as before the claim occurred. We cannot see a case for discriminating against different businesses just because of a blunt instrument like the size of their turnover.
BIBA does not believe the decision on whether the activity is a riot should lie with the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) as this is a fundamental conflict of interest. It should instead rest with a separate panel of independent officials which should be consulted upon. This is following the problems experienced in 2011 where some police forces and MPs would not acknowledge the events were a riot, making it a very difficult situation for many victims.
The responsibility on the police to keep the peace remains the same and the need for compensation is no less. We do not believe that PCCs should have this power. An independent panel would therefore avoid any conflict of interest.
