Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others

(
)
  • Reviewed: QPQ exempt
  • Comment: I'm looking into 5x expanding leapfrog appeal and possibly running a double hook, so would like to delay promotion for a bit; still need to do some more research into the topic this week to decide if I can expand it.

Created by ProcrastinatingReader (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Date and length fine. However @ProcrastinatingReader:, why is a leapfrog appeal rare? It doesn't say why in the article. QPQ not needed as this is his second nomination, no close paraphrasing. I'd be happy to hold off promotion to make this a double hook if you'd like, when would you be able to get it done by? Ping me when its sorted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Certain criteria need to be met to do a leapfrog appeal, the consent of both parties, and it needs to meet a bar of being a case of 'public importance'. [3] The lower courts were also bound by, I think, the previous decision in the Orient Express case, which I imagine is how this case met the criteria (combined with time sensitivity, probably) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Re expansion: going to look this week to do some research on the matter. If I can expand it should be done sometime this week. Will ping once ready. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, the hook is inaccurate as written, insurance companies are not "liable for the losses made by businesses" due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, where a business had a business interruption policy in force, the ruling means that the insurance companies can not deny liability and refuse payouts on the grounds that the COVID-19 lockdowns were not covered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    How about “are liable” -> “can be liable”? That seems accurate / true? I don’t want to word it too technically, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That sounds better. Let's make it ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Financial_Conduct_Authority_v_Arch_Insurance_(UK)_Ltd_%26_others&oldid=1017735707"