The insured, fish farm owners, sought a declaration from insurers that cover was available for loss of farmed fish to sea lice. Insurers refused cover on the basis that the policy expressly excluded sea lice from cover for loss caused by predators and sea lice did not fall within the cover for disease, as sea lice caused disease but were not a disease themselves. The Court declared cover for the Insured, finding that an exclusion in one clause did not mean exclusion from the entire policy. Commercial common sense meant there was no distinction to be drawn between disease and its cause.
Court of Session, Outer House
27 January 2011