CAMSTAR HERBS LIMITED v ADVISORY INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED (T/A MORGAN LAW INSURANCE BROKERS)
Decision date: 27 October 2026
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
Court: High Court (Commercial Court)
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 is a claim by Camstar against its insurance broker for failing to arrange business-interruption cover on a gross revenue (loss of revenue) basis, such that payments Camstar made to suppliers after a 16 August 2021 fire were uninsured. The court found the broker had not arranged the appropriate cover and awarded Camstar damages of £1,249,362.50 for the ongoing payments. The judge also concluded that, even if an alternative insurer claim (ICOW) had existed, failure to pursue it would not have broken causation.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium
Where a broker failed to advise and arrange the form of business-interruption cover the insured required (gross revenue/loss of revenue cover) and the insured would have taken and paid for that cover, the insured is entitled to recover the loss caused by that failure; accordingly the ongoing payments totalling £1,249,362.50 were awarded as damages.
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 judge stated (hypothetically) that, had there been a valid ICOW claim, the insured’s decision not to pursue it would still not have broken the causal link between the broker’s breach and Camstar’s loss because those handling the matter acted reasonably in rejecting the claim.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from selected parts of a longer judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted; that omission may exclude detailed factual findings and reasoning underpinning some conclusions.