A reported tuberculosis outbreak at an Amazon warehouse has refocused attention on how insurers treat workplace disease exposure, particularly where liability is contested and operational disruption does not neatly align with standard business interruption triggers.
Trade union GMB said multiple cases had been identified at Amazon’s Coventry site, prompting NHS blood testing of workers and calls for a temporary closure while infection control measures are assessed. While the operational response continues, the situation raises broader insurance questions that extend well beyond this single site.
From an insurance perspective, disease-related incidents challenge how liability is assessed when exposure is gradual, causation is uncertain and responsibility may be disputed.
Matt Pini (pictured), managing partner at Consilium Broking UK, said employers’ liability remains the primary line of cover in workplace disease cases, but it does not operate on a strict cause-and-effect basis.
“So TB is covered, but there needs to be evidence of negligence,” he said.
Unlike a one-off injury, disease claims raise complex questions around where exposure occurred, whether the employer was aware of a risk, and what steps were taken once concerns emerged.
“How do you prove it was contracted at work and that it was due to the employer’s negligence? It is very, very difficult to prove,” Pini said.
As a result, insurers and courts tend to focus less on the presence of illness itself and more on employer conduct and decision-making once a potential issue becomes apparent.
For casualty insurers, incidents like this bring renewed attention to workplace conditions rather than the illness itself, particularly in sectors where staff work in proximity for sustained periods.
Pini said insurers increasingly scrutinise environmental controls and working practices when assessing employers’ liability risk, with those factors influencing underwriting appetite and pricing decisions.
“There would be a huge focus on what an insurer or broker can provide in terms of risk management, and making sure that the environment that the company is providing for their staff is safe and ventilated,” he said.
This information, he added, plays a central role in whether insurers are willing to write the risk at standard terms or require higher premiums.
While employers may view precautionary closures or reduced output as a classic business interruption scenario, insurance cover often tells a different story.
Business interruption policies are typically structured around physical damage triggers, and many now explicitly exclude infectious or communicable diseases following COVID.
“Since lockdown and COVID, many business interruption policies actively exclude infectious diseases, so it is not covered,” Pini said.
Although extensions can be purchased, they are optional, often subject to inner limits and priced according to perceived exposure. The challenge, brokers warn, is that these exclusions may not be fully appreciated until disruption occurs.
“If there is a change in policy wording, it should be, and needs to be, highlighted by the broker first and foremost,” Pini said.
A single incident is unlikely to shift underwriting appetite on its own, but repeated disease-related disruptions could begin to influence how large logistics and warehousing risks are structured and priced.
Pini said insurers may remain willing to write core liability cover while restricting or declining disease-related extensions, depending on risk controls and workforce density.
“If this became more frequent, then absolutely, when we are broking a risk, we would have those conversations with an underwriter,” he said.
For brokers, the episode serves as a reminder that workplace disease exposure sits at the intersection of liability, operational resilience and insurance structure, and that assumptions formed in the immediate aftermath of COVID may no longer reflect current policy reality.
