This case study is an anonymised composite based on publicly reported commercial insurance claim patterns. It is not actual Apex client data and does not constitute legal or insurance advice. Names, locations and identifying details have been changed. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.
A small chain of three independent home-furnishings retailers across Bath, Frome and Bradford-on-Avon, owned and managed by two business partners. Combined turnover £2.8m, with the Bath store accounting for approximately £1.6m of that. The Bath store occupies leasehold ground-floor premises on a busy shopping street, located adjacent to a row of historic Georgian buildings housing a mix of small retailers, a restaurant and several first-floor offices. Insurance is a combined commercial policy with material damage, BI on a twelve-month indemnity period and standard combined liability cover.
A fire originated in the restaurant kitchen two doors down from the Bath store and spread through the connected timber-framed roof voids to adjacent properties. The home-furnishings store itself was not damaged by fire but suffered significant smoke and water damage from the firefighting operation, and was inaccessible for an extended period during the post-fire investigation, building stabilisation and adjacent-property reinstatement work.
The Bath store was closed for approximately fourteen weeks. The first six weeks comprised the active firefighting and emergency response phase, including a temporary structural support installation for the adjacent damaged buildings and a forensic fire investigation. During this period the immediate area was cordoned off by Avon and Somerset Police and Avon Fire and Rescue Service. The subsequent eight weeks comprised reinstatement of the adjacent buildings, the lifting of the cordon, and the cleaning and refurbishment of the home-furnishings store itself (smoke contamination of stock, redecoration of the interior, replacement of soft-furnishing display items).
The store was not the source of the fire and bore no liability for the incident. The principal coverage question was whether the BI loss attributable to the inaccessibility of the store fell within the “denial of access” or “prevention of access” extension to the BI cover.
The store’s BI loss over the fourteen-week closure period was assessed at approximately £180,000 on a gross profit basis, plus approximately £24,000 of additional cost of working (rerouting some operations through the Frome and Bradford-on-Avon stores, online order fulfilment costs, and stock transfer costs).
The store’s material damage element was approximately £42,000 covering smoke contamination of stock, interior cleaning and redecoration, and replacement of some display items. This element was relatively straightforward under the material damage section.
The BI element was contested. The combined commercial policy’s denial-of-access extension covered loss arising from physical damage to property in the vicinity of the insured premises preventing access to the insured premises, subject to a £100,000 sub-limit and an indemnity period limited to three months. The actual closure period exceeded the three-month limit and the actual loss exceeded the £100,000 sub-limit.
A separate provision in the policy — the “prevention of access by civil authority” extension — covered loss arising from prevention of access by order of a civil authority following an insured peril within a one-mile radius, subject to a four-week indemnity period. The police cordon during the first six weeks engaged this extension for part of the loss period but not for the latter eight weeks (when access was theoretically possible but the store remained closed for reinstatement).
Notification was made within forty-eight hours of the fire. The insurer’s loss adjuster engaged with the store and with the loss adjusters acting for the restaurant (the source of the fire) and the adjacent property owners.
The denial-of-access extension was applied to the first three months of loss (the BI cover responded up to its £100,000 sub-limit). The prevention-of-access by civil authority extension was applied to the first four weeks (substantially overlapping with the denial-of-access cover, so the cumulative effect was modest).
The remaining BI loss attributable to the period beyond the three-month denial-of-access sub-limit (approximately two months) was uncovered under the existing wording. The pure material damage cover responded to the store’s own physical damage and clean-up costs at full assessed value (£42,000) less the standard excess.
A separate workstream was the recovery from the restaurant’s insurer. The restaurant’s combined liability insurer engaged with the store’s insurer on subrogation. The fire investigation found that the restaurant had a kitchen fire suppression system that had not been serviced within the manufacturer-recommended interval; while this did not establish full liability, it provided a basis for a meaningful contribution. After negotiation the restaurant’s PL insurer contributed approximately £85,000 to the store’s wider loss including the uncovered BI element.
Total insured indemnity to the store across all sources was approximately £230,000 against a total loss of approximately £246,000, leaving a residual uninsured loss of approximately £16,000.
The store reopened in time for the Christmas trading period. The combined commercial policy renewed at the following renewal with a modest 12% premium increase reflecting the relatively clean outcome on the store’s own claim. The BI denial-of-access sub-limit was increased to £250,000 at the broker’s recommendation, and the indemnity period under that extension was extended to six months. The prevention-of-access by civil authority extension was reviewed and the radius was confirmed at one mile (the standard market position).
The Avon Fire and Rescue Service investigation concluded with recommendations to all kitchen-equipped businesses in the immediate area about fire suppression maintenance, ducting cleaning and emergency response planning. The restaurant rebuilt and reopened approximately eighteen months after the fire.
The store’s broader insurance arrangement was reviewed by the broker against the wider risk profile of a multi-site retail operation with heavy peak-trading concentration; one specific recommendation was the addition of a “loss of attraction” extension to the BI cover for the Bath store, recognising the dependency of the store on the wider shopping street’s footfall.
Denial-of-access and prevention-of-access extensions are the most commonly overlooked elements of commercial BI cover and one of the most consequential for retail and hospitality operations clustered together in shopping streets. First, the denial-of-access sub-limit and indemnity period should be reviewed annually against the realistic closure scenarios in the immediate area — three months and £100,000 are no longer appropriate for any meaningful retail operation. Second, the prevention-of-access by civil authority extension typically has a tighter radius and a shorter indemnity period than denial-of-access; both should be on the cover and both should be benchmarked. Third, loss-of-attraction cover is an emerging area that covers loss arising from damage to nearby attractions or amenities that affect footfall to the insured premises; this is increasingly relevant for retail in tourist or destination locations. Fourth, contemporaneous trading data is essential for any BI claim — point-of-sale system records, monthly accounts, customer footfall data and operational metrics should be preserved promptly after any closure event. Fifth, subrogation against the source of an external fire is a meaningful recovery pathway and the insurer should be encouraged to pursue it actively.
We would have benchmarked the denial-of-access and prevention-of-access extensions at the previous renewal against the Bath store’s specific risk profile (a historic street with multiple kitchen-equipped neighbours and a high degree of operational interdependence). The sub-limit and indemnity period would have been increased proactively. At notification, we would have coordinated the engagement between the store’s insurer, the restaurant’s insurer and the adjacent property owners’ insurers — multi-party fire claims benefit from one designated coordinator and the absence of one extends the matter unnecessarily. The subrogation recovery from the restaurant’s PL insurer is a workstream we would have driven from the earliest stage rather than waiting for the loss adjusters to coordinate it on their own timetable.
For the underlying cover, see our Retail insurance hub.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote