Talk:Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in a rare leapfrog appeal the UK Supreme Court decided that insurance companies can be liable for business losses arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that in a rare leapfrog appeal the UK Supreme Court decided that insurance companies are liable for business losses arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic?~~ Source: [1][2]

Reviewed: QPQ exempt
Comment: I'm looking into 5x expanding leapfrog appeal and possibly running a double hook, so would like to delay promotion for a bit; still need to do some more research into the topic this week to decide if I can expand it.

Created by ProcrastinatingReader (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Date and length fine. However @ProcrastinatingReader:, why is a leapfrog appeal rare? It doesn't say why in the article. QPQ not needed as this is his second nomination, no close paraphrasing. I'd be happy to hold off promotion to make this a double hook if you'd like, when would you be able to get it done by? Ping me when its sorted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain criteria need to be met to do a leapfrog appeal, the consent of both parties, and it needs to meet a bar of being a case of 'public importance'. [3] The lower courts were also bound by, I think, the previous decision in the Orient Express case, which I imagine is how this case met the criteria (combined with time sensitivity, probably) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Re expansion: going to look this week to do some research on the matter. If I can expand it should be done sometime this week. Will ping once ready. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs to be put in the article that it was rare. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The adjectival use of "UK" is not ideal, Supreme Court of the UK is better than UK Supreme Court. GPinkerton (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The court often refers to itself as "UK Supreme Court" eg here, & also styled as such by RS eg. But mainly I went with that because it's shorter and flowed better imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the hook is inaccurate as written, insurance companies are not "liable for the losses made by businesses" due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, where a business had a business interruption policy in force, the ruling means that the insurance companies can not deny liability and refuse payouts on the grounds that the COVID-19 lockdowns were not covered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about “are liable” -> “can be liable”? That seems accurate / true? I don’t want to word it too technically, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better. Let's make it ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 ... that in a rare leapfrog appeal the UK Supreme Court decided that insurance companies can be liable for business losses arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
The C of E feel free to proceed with this DYK for now. I don't think I'll find the time/energy to research and expand leapfrog to ~1500 words atm, though I hope to do that and Test case (law) at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hook is fine. Good to go then. rest of review as above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]