Barley Pub Company Ltd & Stonegate Group Subsidiaries v. Marsh Limited, Claim No. CL-2025-000174
This claim is the sequel to Stonegate’s efforts to recover its business interruption losses due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Certain companies within the Stonegate Group allege that Marsh Limited (“Marsh”) – their insurance broker at the relevant time – negligently failed to arrange business interruption insurance cover for them. They allege that, had Marsh exercised due skill and care, they would have been indemnified by insurers for certain business interruption losses. In the circumstances, they claim the shortfall in insurance recoveries from Marsh.
The Claimants filed Particulars of Claim on 21 November 2025. Pursuant to an Order of Mr Justice Butcher dated 15 December 2025, Marsh must file and serve its Defence by 23 January 2026.
The Stonegate Group is a group of companies – all ultimately owned by Stonegate Pub Company Holding S.a.r.l. – which owns and operates pubs, bars, hotels and restaurants at a variety of locations across the UK. Following a decade of corporate expansion, by March 2020, the Stonegate Group was the largest pub company in the UK. It had a portfolio of 1,289 sites within the managed division and 3,284 leased and tenanted businesses[1].
The Claimants’ Particulars of Claim state that in September 2018, after winning a competitive tender, Marsh was appointed to replace WTW as the Stonegate Group’s insurance broker.
Marsh duly proceeded to arrange and place a Material Damage and Business Interruption Policy insurance policy underwritten by MS Amlin Corporate Member Limited, Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE and Zurich Insurance Plc for the period 1 May 2019 to 30 April 2020 (the “Policy”). The Policy was placed on the Marsh Resilience MD/BI v1.1 Form wording, which included non-damage business interruption cover under Clause 2.3(viii) for 'Notifiable Diseases and Other Incidents' and under Clause 2.3(xii) for 'Prevention of Access – Non Damage'. The Policy named “Stonegate Pub Company Limited” as the Policyholder / Insured and stated the address to be: “Porter Tun House, 500 Capability Green, Luton LU1 3LS”.
By late January 2020, the first cases of Covid-19 were reported in the UK, during the Policy period. The Claimants allege that by 17 February 2020 their businesses were interfered with by Covid-19. This culminated on 20 March 2020 when the Prime Minister announced that all pubs, bars and restaurants should close as soon as they reasonably could and should not reopen the next day. On 4 July 2020 pubs, bars and restaurants were permitted to reopen in England. Such businesses were permitted to reopen on 6 July 2020 in Scotland and on 13 July 2020 in Wales.
In March 2021 Stonegate Pub Company Limited (“SPCL”) commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court against insurers under the Policy claiming an indemnity for the business interruption losses it suffered due to Covid-19 [Claim No. CL-2021-000161]. In November 2023, following trial and judgment on preliminary issues, SPCL reached a confidential settlement of its claim with insurers.
Only SPCL was insured under the Policy; no other companies within the Stonegate Group were insured under the Policy. As Mr Justice Butcher held in his judgment on the preliminary issues in Stonegate Pub Company Limited v MS Amlin Corporate Member Limited & Ors [2022] EWHC 2548 (Comm) at [11]: “The Policy is one which was taken out by Stonegate [Pub Company Limited], which was the sole Policyholder and Insured named”.
In the current claim, the Claimants allege that Marsh negligently failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the Policyholder and/or the Insured were named as either:
a) Stonegate Pub Company Limited and its Subsidiary Companies (and its Associated Companies as advised to the Insurers); or
b) Stonegate Pub Company Holding S.a.r.l and subsidiaries.
(emphasis added).
The Claimants make other related allegations including that Marsh failed to take reasonable steps to recommend and obtain a policy which met the Claimants’ needs; Marsh failed to advise the Claimants that they were not insured under the Policy; Marsh failed to arrange the Policy as a composite policy by which each of the Claimants had their own insurance; and that Marsh breached various rules set out in Financial Conduct Authority’s Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS).
The Claimants allege that if Marsh had acted with due skill and care, then the Claimants would also have been insureds under the Policy, and the Policy would have been a composite policy. As a result, it is alleged that each of the Claimants would also have been entitled to indemnity from the insurers.
The Claimants rely on various documents produced by the parties during the competitive tender process and the placement process as evidence that Marsh was aware of the Stonegate Group’s corporate structure. For example, the Claimants rely on a draft “Market Taster Document” which was prepared by Marsh for prospective insurers. In this document, it is alleged that Marsh identified the proposed insured as: “Stonegate Pub Company Limited and its Subsidiary Companies (and its Associated Companies as advised to the Insurers)”. The Claimants also rely on the fact that a copy of the expiring policy (placed by WTW) was provided to Marsh, and that the expiring policy named the Insured as: “Stonegate Pub Company Limited and its Subsidiary Companies (and its Associated Companies as advised to the Insurers)”.
The Claimants claim that, had they been properly insured, each Claimant entity would have been entitled to an indemnity for the business interruption losses it suffered due to Covid-19 in accordance with the Policy terms. The Policy terms – being, the Marsh Resilience Form – have been the subject of significant judicial interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Various Eateries Trading Ltd v Allianz [2024] EWCA Civ 10 and by the High Court in Stonegate Pub Company Limited v MS Amlin Corporate Member Limited & Ors [2022] EWHC 2548 (Comm). It is claimed that the losses are calculated accordingly.
In summary, each Claimant claims for its reduction in Turnover, Increased Costs of Working (“ICOW”) and Additional Increased Costs of Wording (“AICOW”) during three distinct periods, up to the liability caps which apply to the latter two periods. The increased costs which are claimed include the financing costs of a Rolling Credit Facility drawn down in March 2020 and a refinancing bond obtained in July 2020.
The Claimants claim these uninsured shortfalls in full. Alternatively, they seek damages for the loss of chance to receive an indemnity. In the further alternative, they say that the likelihood is that, had they been insured under the Policy, they too would have reached a settlement with insurers, and they claim damages for the value for that lost chance.
The focus of this claim will be on the legal basis for establishing broker negligence, based on the specific facts relating to this placement. The Claimants will be required to establish that Marsh owed them a duty of care to provide the relevant insurance coverage, that Marsh breached that duty, that any such breach directly caused the Claimants’ losses. Whilst brokers act as agents for policyholders in terms of securing appropriate insurance, they understand fully that they are also first in the queue to face negligence claims if insurers decline cover. Whilst the legal basis for establishing negligence will rest heavily on the specific facts of this case, the case highlights other issues of wider significance for brokers and policyholders alike.
1. Placement of group policies
Issues around the operation of group policies have come to the fore in recent Covid-19 coverage litigation.
In Corbin & King v AXA Insurance Plc [2022] EWHC 409 (Comm) multiple entities – which each separately owned a restaurant venue – were separately insured under a single policy. Mrs Justice Cockerill held that the policy was a composite policy and that each entity was therefore separately insured and entitled to its own limit of liability. That case, however, was distinguished by the Court of Appeal in Various Eateries Trading Ltd v Allianz [2024] EWCA Civ 10 in which it was held that based on the facts in this later case, a single corporate entity which owned multiple restaurants at different premises, was only entitled to a single limit of liability in respect of all of its premises.
The current claim will raise similar issues given the Claimants assert they would have been insured on a composite basis had they been properly insured under the Policy. In any event, this claim serves as a timely reminder of the importance of ensuring that group policies are structured appropriately for the relevant corporate group, and that all parties are clear as to the entities insured under a single policy, and whether the limits of liability do in fact operate on a composite or joint basis.
2. Contractual terms of engagement
This claim is pleaded in tort only; no reliance is placed on any contractual terms of engagement in place between the parties. Where terms of engagement are agreed between brokers and policyholders, it is usual that these may define or limit (to some degree) the broker’s potential liability.
3. Loss of chance analysis
The Court of Appeal in Norman Hay Plc (in Members’ Voluntary Liquidation) v Marsh Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 58, recently reaffirmed the principle that professional negligence claims against brokers must be assessed on a loss of a chance basis. This means the court will not confine itself to a strict analysis of what the claimant would have been entitled to recover under the relevant policy. The court will assess, on the balance of probabilities, what would have occurred in the counterfactual world in which there was no breach of duty by the broker.
This case is perhaps unusual in that one group company, SPCL, was insured under the Policy and did reach a confidential settlement with insurers. In such circumstances, it remains to be seen whether the terms of the confidential settlement between SPCL and its insurers could potentially become disclosable as evidence of what might have occurred in the counterfactual scenario where other group companies were also insured under the Policy.
If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this client alert, please contact a member of the team.
Back
