Host Advisory Board members

[Mike-And-Jane0]

Interesting to see that some board members who haven't posted here since 2017 are suddenly posting multiple times. The cynic in me suggests that Airbnb have asked them to do so to find out what is going on in Airbnb land.

Perhaps they should have just invited some of the more prolific posters on the community centre to be on the advisory board!

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Nathalie-Et-Gilles0 If you could provide a link to an insurance policy that would pay out in the event that a trip is cancelled due to it being illegal to host I am sure many guests would be interested. Sadly I don't think such a policy exists.

[Nathalie-Et-Gilles0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

Not because it is illegal to host.

In this case, it is the host who cancels.

Because travellers cannot travel.

In this case, their are travel insurances .

Ex : I can host.
But some travellers out France cannot come because of my country or their country forbid them to travel.

You confuse host’s impeachments and traveller’s impeachments.

They are not the same.
One is you cannot open your home and it is your problem and you must repay.

The other one is they cannot come and it is their problem. 

[Helen350]

@Nathalie-Et-Gilles0 

Please STOP telling British hosts that Airbnb policy trumps the laws of our land. It doesn't!

Please stop incorrectly applying French law to the UK. 

www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-to-investigate-concerns-about-cancellation-policies-during-th... 

@Mary996 

[Mary996]

What does travel insurance cover? | Travel Insurance Review

https://www.travelinsurancereview.net/beginners-guide/coverage

So, what does travel insurance cover? Here’s the very short answer: Travel insurance covers cancellations, medical expenses, evacuations, loss or delays, and 24/7 assistance. The 5 Things Travel Insurance covers. These are the 5 basic types of coverage provided with vacation insurance.

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Mary996 You need to read the small print. This is where you will find that an insured person needs to mitigate any losses which would mean that applying the law of the land to get a refund (if in the UK) before any claim would be considered. 

[Helen350]

Insurance polices EXCLUDE pandemics, @Mary996 . 

Google 'frustrated contracts' to see how UK law insists that refunds must be given when government legislation makes hosting and travelling illegal. 

[Mary996]

Agreed frustrated contracts cannot be enforced but this doesn't mean that such a risk can't be insured against.

[Mary996]

Insurers can elect to insure any risk they so choose. Its just that the expense is likely to be very unattractive.

[Mary996]

, a vaccine won’t reimburse for lost revenue. But an insurance policy could.

Up until now, it’s been a challenge to recoup money for pandemic-related damages. That could be shifting.

In December, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed to consolidate 13 COVID-19-related business interruption lawsuits spread across five U.S. court districts. That same month, a New Orleans restaurant asked a judge to order some Lloyd’s of London insurers to cover losses from the COVID-19 outbreak. The policy in question was an “all-risk” policy, which the restaurant claims should cover losses attributed to a shutdown order due to the pandemic.

Similarly, a Florida casino with an all-risk policy filed a lawsuit against four insurers in July, stating that it was denied business insurance coverage, even though the casino could not operate due to shutdown orders. The casino also noted that it is not suing other insurers that had exclusion clauses pertaining to viruses in the sold policies.

And following a September test case in the English High Court, the UK insurance industry faces the prospect of being liable to cover losses relating to COVID-19 under business interruption policies. This decision has ramifications for the U.S.

[Nathalie-Et-Gilles0]

@Helen350 

I confirm all what @Mary996 says.

Some insurance covers pandemics (all risk) and other don’t.

This is why some closed restaurants due to governemental restrictions are repaid and other have nothing.

Insurance companies are private companies and they can cover whatever they want from your pet mouse to any disease or accidents.

Some CB insurances cover travel restrictions declared by a government and other don’t.

It is not fair to provide untrue information on such a serious matter.

Please get informed on how insurances work and it may change your mind ... or not.

[Helen350]

@Nathalie-Et-Gilles0 Please stop **

**[Personal remarks hidden - Community Center Guidelines]

[Mary996]

Sorry Helen....??? I think you may be describing yourself here. I'm engaged in discussion with @Nathalie-Et-Gilles0  about insurance and enjoying the conversation. Feel free to join in!

[Helen350]

Don't put words into my mouth @Mary996 ! You've probably misunderstood **

**[Personal remarks hidden - Community Center Guidelines]

[Mary996]

Which words do you consider that I am putting in your mouth?

[Mary996]

Subject to any appeal, the decision in the Test Case could be beneficial to up to 370,000 policyholders[10] in the U.K. and will likely have significant financial consequences for the relevant insurers. Policyholders will, however, need to contend with the nuances of their specific policy wordings, and the application of the decision in the Test Case to each individual scenario will need to be considered carefully against the detailed Test Case decision and factors that are individual to the policyholder (such as the actual effect on and loss to the policyholder). In some cases, further litigation may be necessary, whether to clarify particular policy wordings, resolve issues around policyholders’ losses or address individual situations.

Policyholders in the U.S. will be less optimistic about their claims for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is due to the potentially more challenging arguments required to persuade U.S. courts that the pandemic has resulted in direct physical loss or physical damage to their respective businesses. Nonetheless, U.S. plaintiffs can continue to expect diverging results across the different U.S. jurisdictions, and the approaches of the U.S. courts in some jurisdictions may be less wedded to a strict requirement for tangible alterations to property or ‘physical loss or damage’, and consequently more favourable to policyholders.

---

[1]The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch and Others [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm)

[2]https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/insuring-smes-business-interruption

[3]See Practice Direction 51M of the Civil Procedure Rules for further details of the Scheme

[4]Court documents and information relating to the trial can be found on the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance webpage

[5]FCA v Arch Insurance, 80-241

[6]Ibid, 231

[7]Ibid, 242-305

[8]Ibid, paragraphs 306-502

[9]https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/finalised-guidance-bi-test-case.pdf

[10]FCA v Arch Insurance, 7