Read the full judgment text of FACV 12/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 February 2012 before Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ.
Insurance law – Composite Mercantile Policies – business interruption cover – clause 14.5 covering loss from 'notifiable human infectious or contagious disease occurring within 25 miles of the Premises' – Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ('SARS') outbreak in Hong Kong in 2003 – five preliminary issues on construction of the policies in light of undisputed SARS facts – whether 'notifiable' means a disease subject to statutory compulsory notification or extends to diseases subject to administrative reporting without statutory sanctions – meaning of 'notifiable' determined by ordinary commercial interpretation with reference to dictionary and medical dictionary definitions and the statutory background – structure of clause 14.5 imposing more stringent requirement for outbreaks away from the premises – commercial people contracting against background of statutory notification regimes such as the Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance (Cap 141) – held: 'notifiable' imports a legal or mandatory obligation to notify, so clause 14.5 cover is confined to diseases required by law to be notified to an authority – first issue answered: SARS became a notifiable disease within 25 miles of the premises on 27 March 2003, when added to the First Schedule to Cap 141 – no ambiguity so contra proferentem rule inapplicable – second issue answered: commencement date of coverage is 27 March 2003, because the cause of the loss must be a notifiable disease, and until that date SARS was not a notifiable disease – earliest claimed loss of 9 March 2003 falls outside clause 14.5 – Court of Appeal and trial judge (Reyes J) upheld – appeal dismissed with costs – on appeal from CACV 97/2010.
Legal issues: Construction of 'notifiable human infectious or contagious disease' in clause 14.5 · Commencement date of coverage under clause 14.5 in respect of SARS
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.