I agree : I thought that was a bit strange and have the impression that John's been a bit less sure footed in terms of his public statements than Nick has.
The reality is that we don't know unless and until we get to know the terms of their insurance contract, but the clear implication from Nick's initial statement was that they are covered for loss of revenue. If that's the case, I assume that that would have been revenue at current levels, after all we are talking about firm orders which had been placed - and in most cases paid for - across their busiest period, rather than forecasts.