Legal Issues Concerning Business Interruption Insurance in Thailand: A Case Study of Business under Registrar Order No. 24/2564

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to study the theories, concepts, and definitions of business interruption insurance, including the events covered and the exclusions under such insurance policies 2. to compare the laws of Thailand with the legal principles of foreign countries concerning business interruption insurance, focusing on the United Kingdom and the United States 3. to analyze the issues that arise, particularly the interpretation of coverage under business interruption insurance and the determination of conditions for calculating business opportunity losses, with the aim of enhancing clarity and ease of interpretation and 4. to study and propose guidelines for establishing clear and interpretable conditions for calculating business opportunity losses. This study employs qualitative research using documentary research methods, collecting data from legal textbooks, research papers, articles, websites, statutes, and electronic information sources related to both Thai and foreign jurisdictions. The collected data are then analyzed using content analysis. The research findings are as follows 1) Business interruption insurance is a specific type of insurance that compensates for income loss resulting from the disruption of business operations 2) A comparative study reveals that Thai law maintains a strict interpretation approach, requiring physical damage to property as a condition for coverage, whereas certain jurisdictions in the United Kingdom and the United States adopt a more flexible interpretation and may provide coverage even in the absence of physical damage 3) Thailand faces challenges in interpreting the term “physical damage” particularly in cases involving invisible contamination. Broad exclusions relating to epidemics may contravene consumer protection principles, and insurance companies often argue that government closure orders are merely advisory rather than prohibitive, thereby denying claims under policy conditions and 4) It is recommended that the definition of physical damage be expanded to include unusable property even without visible damage and that new policy models be developed which do not require physical damage as a prerequisite. Moreover, exclusions relating to epidemics should be clarified and made fairer, and the development of clearer interpretive guidelines should be encouraged through case law or regulatory guidance.