difference between the sum of turnover plus closing stock and work in progress, and the sum of opening stock/work in progress plus Specified Working Expenses, Uninsured Working Expenses, Uninsured Variable Charges, or some similar term. Some explicitly use the word ‘Purchases’, which may or may not be denoted with a capital ‘P’, and similarly may or may not be defined. In many wordings the costs to be uninsured are not listed within the policy wording itself, but reference is made to the Schedule in which they should be set out.
Package policies often offer a definition rather than referring to a specific list of Uninsured or Specified Working Expenses. In some cases, definitions of Gross Profit refer to lists of costs set out in the Schedule, but the Schedule does not always include such a list.
1.1.2What is the problem?
Gross profit is a term in everyday use in the business community, and is one that has no particular definition. It is not defined in statute. It is not defined in any accounting standard. In stark contrast, insurance policies explicitly include a definition, which typically may be stated as turnover less purchases (adjusted for stock) less bad debts and carriage out.
Confusion over an everyday commercial term arises.
With reference to the example profit and loss account above, the gross profit for accountancy purposes amounts to £45 million. However, based on an insurance definition only deducting purchases of raw materials, and allowing for the movement between opening and closing stock, the insurance gross profit would be £78 million:
| £m | £m | |
| Turnover | 125 | |
| Opening stock | 20 | |
| Raw materials | 45 | |
| Closing stock | (18) | |
| Cost of sales | (47) | |
| Gross profit | 78 |
In some cases, the policy refers to the Schedule to ascertain the list of uninsured costs. However, some Schedules do not contain any list, which effectively means that Gross Profit, for policy purposes, is not accurately defined pre-incident.
In other cases, insurers pre define Gross Profit, resulting in the policies not being tailored to the needs of policyholders, and lacking the flexibility otherwise available (albeit this may be an unavoidable necessity for an small and medium enterprises (SME) ‘package’ product).
Where the term ‘purchases’ is used, the BI texts, including Riley on Business Interruption Insurance1 and Honour and Hickmott’s Principles and Practice of Interruption Insurance,2 both take the view that ‘Purchases’ represent physical raw material purchases. Costs closely associated with Purchases, such as subcontracting expenses, are not always explicitly dealt with. Even where policies do contain a tight definition of purchases, it may be that that term does not appear in the books of account of the insuring business. There can therefore be a disjoint between terminology used in the policy and terminology used in the books of account. Even where the policy acquiesces to use terms in the books of account (accounts designation clause), it is not usually stated whether such books of account represent management accounts, statutory accounts, or some other underlying books maintained by the business.
As with gross profit, the term ‘purchases’ is in everyday use, and is not necessarily restricted to raw materials. For example, the term ‘purchases’ appears as a box on a standard VAT return, and, in that context, includes all types of purchase and expense, including utilities and even replacement of capital plant.
It is commonly the case that, when buying BI cover, the policyholder tends to envisage an incident of major proportions such that, say, their entire premises are destroyed. In such cases, many overheads may well cease, or abate, and thus there would have been no need for these to have been insured. This approach is flawed in that it fails to recognise those circumstances where partial damage can, for example, leave a production line operational but far less efficient. This is just one illustration of how costs that are apparently variable prove, under certain circumstances, to be fixed.
1.1.3What are the consequences?
Differences in terminology or lack of clarity between the policy and the business community cause confusion.
Many businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, also deduct items such as wages and power in defining gross profit in the statutory accounts, and there is frequently a failure to appreciate that the definition of the term gross profit used in either the annual statutory or the monthly management accounts is likely to differ from the more specific definition of Gross Profit in an insurance policy.
Businesses purchasing insurance can fail to appreciate the significance of this point even after their insurer or broker brings it to their attention, such that any misunderstanding crystallises in a potential shortfall in coverage when an incident occurs.
If items such as wages and power are deducted in addition to purchases (adjusted for stock), the resultant gross profit that is insured will be lower than that defined in the policy. In the event of a claim, the insured may receive less than the full loss due to the application of underinsurance, policy limits, or potential voiding of the policy where a significant under-declaration of Estimated Gross Profit has been made. While the policyholder may suffer a one-off and very unwelcome and untimely shortfall, insurers would have been receiving less premium income, over the lifetime of being on cover, than if the correct level of cover had been chosen. In other words, both parties potentially suffer.
In the example above, the Estimated Gross Profit of £45 million would be 42% inadequate compared to the insurable amount of £78 million.
The claims presentation community, in discussion with clients post-incident, frequently highlights for the first time that the policy defines Gross Profit in a manner other than that used within the accounts. This can give rise to a major expectation difficulty, frequently leading to significant shortfalls in indemnity.
The difference in terminology was highlighted in the case of Arbory Group Ltd v West Craven Insurance Services.3 In that instance, a calculation of gross profit using an accountancy/business definition as opposed to that in the policy gave rise to a significant shortfall in the settlement and a subsequent claim for negligence against the broker.
Where the definition is not sufficiently clear, the level of under-recovery can be significant. On one occasion, financial information supplied after a fire was fundamentally irreconcilable to the level of declarations made in recent years. The business interruption loss was in the region of £5 million. The declarations were completed annually, showing turnover, purchases and opening and closing stock. It transpired that the finance director regularly summarised, over three pages of A4 paper, a significant list of costs (that represented things the business purchased) but entered only the total of that list against the term ‘purchases’ to reduce the amount of paper involved in the process. The existence of the list was unknown to the broker or insurer. The fact that purchases might be construed as relating to raw materials only did not occur to the finance director. If the definition used by the insured for declaration purposes had been adopted, under-recovery of 25% of the actual loss would have been achieved.
1.1.4Potential solutions
Given that the core difficulty here is an (erroneous) assumption on the part of the policyholder that Gross Profit in an insurance policy is likely to mean the same thing as it does in their accounts (which in some cases it will), it may be advantageous to introduce a new term that will require the business person to explore the relevant definition and necessary calculation when selecting the level of cover required.
The term ‘Gross Profit’ could be replaced with ‘Insurance Profit’, ‘Insurance Gross Profit’, ‘Insurable Profit’
