A recent ruling from court number two in Pola de Siero, Asturias, finds that an insurer must pay a total compensation of 40,500 euros plus interest. The decision, issued during the pandemic when an entrepreneur was three months into business, clarifies that the insurer can avoid payment only if it clearly informs the client that specific terms in the policy exclude compensation in a pandemic event like COVID-19. Since the policy did not contain such exclusions and no force majeure was proven, the judge ordered the insurer to cover the 40,500 euros plus three months of interrupted activity interest.
The plaintiff, who runs a yogurt counter, was represented by David Mayo of the Oviedo firm MP Abogados y Asesores. According to Mayo, other lawyers handling similar cases report that roughly 25,000 to 28,000 businesses may be in a comparable position. Some have been deemed eligible for compensation under measures that the Constitutional Court has ruled on in light of recent constitutional decisions.
Although this marks the first Asturias ruling to compel compensation for pandemic shutdowns, similar outcomes have occurred across Spain, from Girona to Granada. In the initial case, the insurer did not file an appeal and was found liable by the County Court.
loss of profit
As Mayo explains, many small businesses hold policies that cover up to three months of lost profits and include daily indemnity calculations. Most policies also present a fact sheet listing the specific conditions that would trigger compensation, such as accidents or major malfunctions. In the present case, the court will determine whether the insurer could deem a pandemic driven shutdown ineligible for compensation, noting that the health crisis does not automatically qualify as force majeure that would excuse payment under the contract.
The lawyer notes that the verdict could have broad implications, potentially leading to more judgments of this kind. He also points out that insurer responses in Asturias have varied and are often limited. In Girona, a similar dispute involving a restaurant business required the court to evaluate a policy section covering business stoppage. The initial decision in that case favored the policyholder, but the County Court later overturned that outcome and allowed the claim to proceed, with the judge again finding a rights limitation present in the policy language.
In all the discussed instances, the central question remains whether the policy terms clearly cover pandemic related shutdowns and whether the business could reasonably claim interruption due to health measures while the company continued to operate in other regions or under altered conditions. Such questions influence the interpretation of specific contract clauses and the evaluation of any exclusions or limitations documented in the policy.
Observers emphasize that these rulings underscore the importance of precise policy wording. Businesses relying on coverage for lost profits must examine policy limits, the duration of coverage, and any special clauses that could affect eligibility during public health emergencies. The evolving jurisprudence in various courts continues to shape how such contracts are interpreted and enforced across the country.