Norman Hay PLC (in Members' Voluntary Liquidation) v Marsh Limited
Decision date: 30 January 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWCA Civ 58
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
This appeal concerned a claim by Norman Hay (in liquidation) that broker Marsh negligently failed to arrange non‑owned auto cover for a group subsidiary after a fatal hire‑car accident in Ohio, causing Norman Hay to fund a large third‑party settlement. The Court of Appeal dismissed Marsh’s appeal against refusal to strike out or grant summary judgment, holding the dispute raises factual issues for trial and that lost‑chance, counterfactual analysis is appropriate in broker‑negligence claims about failure to procure insurance. The court rejected that absence of pleaded third‑party liability was necessarily fatal at this stage and held it is not presently clear Norman Hay suffered no recoverable loss.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: high
In a broker negligence claim for failure to arrange insurance, damages are to be assessed by reference to the counterfactual of what would have occurred had the broker performed the duty; where the likely conduct of others (for example, a putative insurer) is material, the court may assess that as a lost chance and evaluate the likelihood the insurer would, as a matter of business, have paid.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The court observed (by way of illustration) that it was not obvious that Norman Hay would have been uninsured under a putative policy given potential liability distinctions between the parent and its subsidiary, and that a putative insurer might pragmatically have funded a group settlement or that Norman Hay could have taken an assignment of the subsidiary's claim; it also noted alternative bases of loss pleaded (instructions to employees or retention of an existing €3m policy) which would survive summary disposal.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from the beginning and end of a long judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted; accordingly some detailed reasoning, evidence and submissions relevant to liability, choice of law and loss assessment are not available in the judgment.