The High Court released its decision today. It’s 150+ pages long and covers a host of issues. The FCA reports that the court generally found in favor of the policyholders. Notably, the insurance policy provisions that the court considered were the “non-damage wordings,” many of which differ significantly from the policy provisions at issue in the U.S. business interruption cases. While there is much grist for the mill in the decision (and I particularly enjoyed the court’s discussion of principles of interpretation), the decision does not address the key threshold issue in the U.S. cases: can the policyholders demonstrate that they have satisfied the “physical loss of or damage to property” requirement?