Insurance decisions
Search by case title, neutral citation, court, date, short overview, ratio decidendi, or obiter dicta.
AI notice: Any summary displayed here is AI-generated,
may be inaccurate or incomplete, and is not legal advice. Consult the
original judgment before relying on it.
- Cometsambre SA v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA HIG 5321 [2026] EWHC 1837 (Comm) This case concerned whether Cometsambre breached its duty of fair presentation by failing to disclose earlier fires at its scrap facilities when renewing hull and FDD cover in 2022, and whether insurers (via AMICA/Lloyd’s) were entitled to avoid the renewal. The court found Cometsambre knew or ought to have known of the May 2020 quayside fire, that the pattern of fires in 2020–2021 was a material change that should have been disclosed, and that AMICA would have declined to renew had it been informed; Lloyd’s was therefore entitled to avoid the 2022 policy and return the premium. Cometsambre’s claim was dismissed.
- CP Holdings Limited & Ors v Assicurazioni Generali SpA & Ors [2026] EWHC 1717 (Comm) This case concerned construction of the 2018 Global Policy, specifically whether the Policy Loss Limit (€150m) and the Disease Clause sub-limit (€10m) operate per loss or as annual aggregates, how the indemnity period applies to Disease Clause business interruption (BI) losses, and the effect of General Clause 5 and the annual declaration spreadsheet on aggregation. The court held the Policy Loss Limit and the Disease sub‑limit are limits "each and every loss" (per loss), the indemnity period for Disease Clause BI runs from commencement of the interruption/interference up to a maximum of 36 months, and General Clause 5 prevents multiplication of the Disease sub‑limit only where the spreadsheet properly declares multiple operations as a single business. Declarations were granted on those preliminary questions; detailed application to the 141-row spreadsheet was left undecided.
- Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor [2026] EWHC 1685 (Comm) This case concerns liability under Section I of insurance policies covering the Nord Stream pipelines after explosions and an indentation (the Dent) on 26 September 2022. The court found the damage was caused by deliberate explosive sabotage and held Exclusion 2.i (war/government act) excluded cover because the Russia–Ukraine war was a significant causal contributor; the claimant’s Section I claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the claimant’s arguments about ICBR/IWCBR operating as the primary insuring clause and held those clauses operate within their ordinary, limited scopes. Quantum was not determined as liability was resolved against the claimant.
- Oceanus Capital SARL v Lloyd's Insurance Company S.A. [2026] EWCA Civ 863 This appeal concerned whether Oceanus, a mortgagee insured under a Mortgagees' Interest (MII) policy, could recover after the M/V Vyssos struck a mine and became a constructive total loss, where owners' War Risks cover was excluded for breach of trading warranties and a purported additional war-risk cover note was a forgery. The Court of Appeal dismissed Insurers' appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the proximate cause of Oceanus' insured loss was the mine strike and related insured perils, that Oceanus was not "privy" to the insured peril, and that the loss was fortuitous; Oceanus was entitled to recover the policy limit of US$3.6 million (plus interest).
- CP Holdings Limited & Ors v Assicurazioni Generali SpA [2026] EWHC 1520 (Comm) This judgment arises from claims by multiple policyholders for business interruption losses from the Covid-19 pandemic under four insurance policies (two Global Master Policies and two local policies for Hungary and Romania). The court addressed a series of preliminary issues including construction of key policy terms, whether the 2019 Global Policy should be rectified to conform to the 2018 policy, and whether particular claims were time-barred. The judge indicated how he would answer many of those preliminary questions and observed that some claims were not time-barred while others fell outside the cover provided. The judgment deals with those preliminary legal questions and directs that counsel assist in drafting an appropriate order giving effect to the conclusions reached.
- Ann Grimes (t/a The Cleveland Arms) & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2026] EWHC 1195 (Comm) This case concerned whether an ARO policy's Extension 2(a) (cover for interruption "arising from discovery of a notifiable human infectious or contagious disease at the Premises") required contemporaneous symptomatic diagnosis or public‑authority knowledge, and whether General Condition 5 (an express condition precedent to notify "immediately" of any event which could result in a claim) applied. The court held that discovery of a COVID‑19 case at the premises must occur between the date the disease became notifiable in the territory and the date of closure, but may be found to have occurred before or after closure; the public authority need not have known of the specific local case so long as that case was one of the events to which the authority was responding. General Condition 5 was a condition precedent requiring very rapid notification after awareness/discovery, and the insurers were not estopped from relying on it.
- The Russian Aircraft Litigation - Operator Policy Claims [2026] EWHC 1134 (Comm) This is an application by War Risk Underwriters to strike out or obtain summary judgment dismissing contribution claims by Chubb and Fidelis arising from payments under contingent lessor protection (LP) policies after the LP Judgment. The court held the LP insurers' payments did not discharge the WRUs' primary liability, that the proper remedy for the paying contingent insurers is subrogation not a direct claim for reimbursement/contribution, that the arrangements do not amount to double insurance, and that the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 does not apply. The Applicants' strike-out/summary judgment applications succeeded and the contribution claims were dismissed.
- WRBC Corporate Member Limited v AXA XL Syndicate Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 939 (Comm) This case concerned whether "event" in the Limits Clause of multi-line XL reinsurance treaties meant the causative occurrence (for example, a COVID-related governmental measure) or the separately defined Class B phrase "Any One Event" (a single conference), and whether 174 cancelled-contingency losses across seven jurisdictions could be aggregated. The court held the Limits Clause should be read as referring to the causative event, not the Class B AOE definition, applied that construction to the claims (with exemplar findings for California and England) and allowed the vast majority of claims, leaving quantum and consequential relief to be determined subsequently.
- Gatwick Investment Ltd and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE; Bath Racecourse Company Ltd and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE and others [2026] UKSC 14 These consolidated appeals concerned whether furlough payments under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) must be deducted under "savings" clauses in business‑interruption insurance policies when calculating indemnity for pandemic‑related lost gross revenue. The material issue was the construction of those savings clauses and whether CJRS payments reduced insured charges or expenses "in consequence of" the insured peril. The court upheld the decisions below and dismissed the appeals, holding that the savings clauses require deduction because the furlough payments reduced charges or expenses and did so in consequence of the insured peril.
- Novitas Loans Limited v Amtrust Specialty Limited [2026] EWHC 592 (Comm) This High Court judgment arises from a 12-day trial of preliminary issues between Novitas (a lender under CCA-regulated loans in a litigation-funding scheme) and AmTrust (the ATE insurer), with related Part 20 and subrogation proceedings involving Sompo as PI insurer of two scheme solicitors. The court addressed whether AmTrust was entitled to be subrogated to policyholders' claims in respect of disbursements funded by Novitas loans and whether such subrogated claims attached to relevant PI policies. The judge concluded that subrogation depends on whether AmTrust made payment expressly or impliedly pursuant to the ATE policies (including that payment must be made in good faith with the intention of satisfying the insureds' losses), that payments made under the Deed of Indemnity do not give rise to subrogation, and that AmTrust's subrogated claims against Sompo in respect of HSS attach to the HSS 20/21 policy (with each insurer being pursued by a single "Claim" in respect of each solicitor).
- Tyson International Company Ltd v GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 40 This case concerned whether an endorsement in later reinsurance Certificates stating "RI slip to take precedence over reinsurance certificate in case of confusion" (the "Confusion Clause") meant that the earlier Master Reinsurance Contracts (MRCs) or the later Master URA Certificates (MURA Certificates) prevailed where they conflicted. The Court of Appeal held the Confusion Clause operated as a hierarchy/inconsistency clause: it gave precedence to the earlier MRCs, so the MRCs' English governing law and exclusive English jurisdiction clause prevailed over the Certificates' New York arbitration clause. GIC's appeal was dismissed and the Commercial Court's anti-suit relief was upheld.
- Trafigura Pte Ltd & Anor v Prateek Gupta & Ors [2026] EWHC 159 (Comm) This commercial trial concerned Trafigura's claim that Prateek Gupta and several corporate defendants perpetrated a large-scale fraud by selling purported LME Grade Nickel that was actually low-value or worthless material. The court found that Mr Gupta devised and implemented the fraud through the corporate defendants, that Trafigura succeeded on its principal causes of action, and that Trafigura is entitled to proprietary relief and substantial damages amounting to about US$500 million, with Mr Gupta personally liable for around that sum. Phase II will address tracing remedies for sums where proprietary rights were established.
- MS “V1” GmbH & Co KG & Anor v SY Co, Ltd [2026] EWHC 52 (Comm) This case concerned whether arbitral tribunals in London had jurisdiction to decide if Article 9 exclusions in shipbuilding guarantee agreements applied to tort/product‑liability claims brought in China by assignees who were not original parties to the arbitration clause. The High Court held that the tribunals did have jurisdiction and dismissed the claim to set aside the two final awards. The court applied the conditional‑benefit/derived‑rights principle to hold that assignees who accept conditional contractual benefits cannot avoid the agreed dispute‑resolution mechanism for disputes about those contractual exclusions.
- Oceanus Capital SARL v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA [2025] EWHC 3293 (Comm) This case concerned Oceanus' claim under a mortgagee's interest insurance after the M/V Vyssos, trading in breach of its War Risks Policy warranties, was damaged by a mine and constructively lost; a purported additional cover shown to Oceanus was a forgery. The court held the proximate cause of Oceanus' loss was the mine strike, the forged document did not constitute an Owners' Policy for MII purposes, Oceanus was not privy to the owners' breach (consent induced by fraud did not constitute privity), and the loss was fortuitous. The court awarded Oceanus USD3.6m, agreed interest and costs, and granted permission to appeal.
- Contis Group Limited & Anor v Swipewallet Holdings Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 3065 (Comm) This commercial dispute concerned the operation and termination of two related agreements under which the Claimants provided card services to Swipewallet's programme, and whether Swipewallet lawfully terminated those agreements and what remedies followed. The Claimants sought substantial sums said to be due on termination; the court found the parties had real disputes and, while accepting the claim was not a sham, ordered the Claimants to give undertakings and to provide security for costs in the sum of £300,000. The judgment records that the Agreements are terminated and that the court would enforce agreed or to-be-ruled terms of undertakings.
- Pan-NOx Emissions Group Litigation (Funding Information and Disclosure Hearing) [2025] EWHC 3116 (KB) The judgment concerns applications by several Manufacturer Defendants for disclosure from the Johnson Law Group (JLG) about its funding arrangements in advance of potential security for costs applications. The court ordered JLG to provide the funding information, subject to provision of adequate after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and proceeded to assess adequacy rather than postponing that issue. The judge held there was no real risk the policy wording (including the anti-avoidance endorsement) was inadequate, determined an appropriate recoverable proportion of defendants' incurred costs as 64%, and fixed 31 July as a cut-off after which required ATE cover must increase pro rata monthly.
- URE Energy Limited v Notting Hill Genesis [2025] EWCA Civ 1407 The case concerned whether URE lost an express contractual right to terminate following Genesis’s amalgamation by continuing to perform without knowledge of that right, and the correct basis for the contract’s termination payment. The Court of Appeal held there is no rule of law deeming a contracting party to know all express contractual termination rights for waiver-by-election purposes, and on the unchallenged findings URE (through Mr Ensor) lacked the requisite knowledge and was therefore entitled to the 50% termination payment based on anticipated future income. The appeal was dismissed.
- Allseeds Switzerland SA v Intergrain SA [2025] EWHC 2788 (Comm) This appeal under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 concerned whether a CIF seller breaches its obligation to procure marine insurance if insurers have rejected a claim, or whether buyers must prove the policy was legally void or voidable. The High Court held that a seller's obligation is to provide an effective policy and that a policy is not effective if void or voidable for misrepresentation/non‑disclosure unless insurers have affirmed it; mere proof that insurers rejected a claim is insufficient without evidence the policy was legally ineffective. The matter was remitted to the FOSFA Appeal Board for reconsideration and costs of the appeal were awarded against the defendant.
- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Ors v Equitas Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 2704 (Comm) This is a reinsurance dispute between RSA (insurers/reinsured) and Equitas (successor reinsurer) about losses under excess-of-loss reinsurance for 1981–1985. The judge decided four Phase 1 issues: the £4m excess is eroded by indemnity payments only; the claims co-operation clause did not alter the follow-the-settlements clause and the reinsurers were bound to follow the TTSA subject to the proper-and-businesslike-steps point; Equitas failed to show a failure to take all proper and businesslike steps; and RSA is entitled to simple interest at 2% above Bank of England base rate from the date of each respective loss.
- Managed Legal Solutions Limited v Darren Hanison [2025] EWHC 2645 (Comm) This is an application by HDI Global Specialty SE to be joined as a second defendant in Managed Legal Solutions Limited’s claim against Darren Hanison trading as Fortitude Law so HDI can be heard on whether Fortitude owed MLS a freestanding tortious duty. The court found there was a conflict of interest between HDI and Mr Hanison on that issue, and granted joinder, directing MLS to amend the claim form and HDI to file the draft defence exhibited in the application.
- DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend, WTX) v Motor Insurer's Bureau [2025] EWHC 2038 (KB) This case concerned whether the Motor Insurers' Bureau (standing in for the Spanish guarantee fund) must pay penalty interest under Article 20 of Spain's Insurance Contract Act on compensation awarded to DHV for a 2017 road accident in Mallorca. Applying Spanish substantive law, the court found the MIB was in default from 19 December 2017 and that no justified or non-attributable delay under Article 20(8) existed. The court ordered penalty interest under Article 20(9) from 19 December 2017 to 28 April 2025, with the amount to be agreed or determined after brief submissions.
- DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB) This case concerned a regulation 13 claim against the Motor Insurers' Bureau after DHV was struck by an uninsured Spanish vehicle in Mallorca; the court applied English procedure but held Spanish substantive law (the Baremo) governed quantification of damages under Rome II. The court found DHV significantly intoxicated and flush to the road at impact, apportioned liability 65% to the claimant and 35% to the driver, applied the 2018 Baremo (consolidation date 25 January 2018), and awarded specified Baremo points and monetary sums while disallowing several claimed heads as unrecoverable under Spanish law. Further submissions were ordered on consequential matters, including penalty interest.
- Delos Shipholding SA & Ors v Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality SE & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1019 This appeal concerned whether exclusion 1(e) of the American Institute War Risks Clauses excluded cover for a Capesize vessel detained for anchoring without permission, and whether the insured breached the Insurance Act 2015 duty of fair presentation by not disclosing criminal charges against the SPV's sole nominee director. The Court of Appeal held exclusion 1(e) did not apply because the detention was not sufficiently similar in purpose to customs or quarantine regulations, and the insured had not breached the duty of fair presentation (the nominee director was not part of the SPV's senior management and insurers had not proved a reasonable-search knowledge). The insurers’ avoidance of the policy failed and the appeal was dismissed.
- AXA France IARD SA v Santander Cards UK Limited [2025] EWHC 1881 (Comm) This commercial dispute concerns historic pre-2005 mis‑selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) sold with store cards, and the allocation of responsibility and costs between the insurers (AXA and predecessors) and the credit lenders (Santander and predecessors, largely within the GE corporate group). The material issue is who must bear liabilities for redress, FOS fees and administrative costs arising from large volumes of historic complaints, and how contractual agency, indemnity and respective duties operate between the parties. The judgment records that AXA (as successor to the insurers) has been required to bear redress for pre‑2005 sales of almost £500 million plus more than £70 million of Financial Ombudsman Service fees.
- The Members of the Probitas Syndicate 1942 at Lloyd's for the 2022 Underwriting Year of Account v Pro 2 Care Limited [2025] EWHC 1921 (Comm) This judgment concerns whether a combined Property Damage & Business Interruption policy provided BI cover for Pro 2 Care after water damage prevented the opening of its premises. The court declared on summary judgment that the Policy did not provide BI cover (and dismissed Pro 2 Care's declaratory counterclaim) because the Schedule omitted any BI sums/indemnity period and there was no operating business at the premises producing Gross Revenue when the damage occurred. The court refused summary judgment on Pro 2 Care's separate counterclaim under the Insurance Act/implied term for unreasonable delay in payment of property-damage sums, directing that factual issues on delay and loss go to trial.
- Bath Racecourse Company Ltd & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE & Ors [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm) This judgment decides three preliminary issues under a composite Material Damage & Business Interruption policy arising from COVID‑19 measures: (1) the BHA and GBGB qualify as "competent authorities" under the Policy's Denial of Access extension; (2) the £2.5m "any one loss" limit applies by reference to each separate loss calculation, with separate calculations for each relevant measure/action that imposes or materially increases restrictions and for each facility type as the parties had allocated sums and indemnity periods by facility; and (3) the Policy's arbitration clause does not require referral of the present quantum issues once liability/construction issues have been determined. Some detailed quantum and factual matters were left for loss adjustment or further evidence.
- Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates, L.P. [2025] EWCA Civ 905 This appeal concerned whether Article 11.1(1) of Chapter 11 of the KORUS FTA — a scope/coverage clause beginning "This Chapter applies to..." — operates as a precondition limiting the consent to arbitration in Article 11.16. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinary meaning of "This Chapter" extends to the whole of Chapter 11 (including Section B) and therefore Article 11.1(1) imposes jurisdictional limits on the offer to arbitrate. The court allowed Korea's appeal and remitted Korea's Arbitration Act 1996 challenge to the Commercial Court for full determination on the merits, leaving unresolved questions about ITA awards and post‑signature diplomatic notes.
- Sky UK Limited & Anor v Riverstone Managing Agency Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1720 (Comm) This judgment records the High Court's directions following the Court of Appeal's remittal of Sky UK Limited & Anor v Riverstone Managing Agency Limited & Ors to quantify indemnity under an all-risks Policy for extensive roof water damage. The judge accepted the Court of Appeal's conclusions that damage after the Period of Insurance and Mace's broader remediation costs fall within the Policy's scope and directed a limited further process (written submissions and a 2–3 day hearing) to determine quantum, with no further evidence without leave. Costs and final procedural orders were reserved.
- AmTrust Speciality Limited v Endurance Worldwide Insurance Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 755 This appeal concerned a deputy High Court judge's refusal to order extended disclosure of contemporaneous contractual documents said to be incorporated into professional indemnity policies, in proceedings where AmTrust (as statutory assignee of scheme solicitors' rights) sought to litigate its Part 20 claims against Sompo. The material issue was whether the judge applied the correct test under PD57AD and whether the documents should be disclosed as potentially relevant to the construction of the Policies and to fairness given AmTrust's lack of access. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the case-management decision and concluded there was reason to suppose the documents might be relevant and therefore should be disclosed.
- Apollo XI Limited v Nexedge Markets Limited This case concerns a without‑notice freezing injunction obtained by Apollo against Nexedge arising from an alleged breach of a US$10m loan agreement and a disputed audio recording. The judgment records that the judge identified multiple failings in Apollo's without‑notice application and materials (including non‑disclosure and mis‑presentation of the recording) and refused Apollo's proposal to delay publication of the judgment. The judgment also notes that the Recording and parts of the judgment are subject to confidentiality restrictions.
- Russian Aircraft Lessor Policy Claims, Re [2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm) This case concerns claims by aircraft lessors under their Lessor Policies for aircraft and engines not returned after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The principal issue was whether losses were covered under Contingent (lessee default) or Possessed (lessor's possession) cover and which peril operated. The court held the Aircraft were lost on 10 March 2022, that the proximate cause was GR 311 (a government "restraint" or "detention" within the War Risks cover), that the losses are recoverable under Contingent Cover and not under Possessed Cover, and that most quantum issues remain to be resolved with some limited items outstanding.
- Carbis Bay Hotel Limited & Anor v American International Group Limited [2025] EWHC 1041 (Comm) This case concerned whether the Business Interruption "Infectious Diseases" extension in an AIG policy covered losses from government-ordered closure due to Covid-19. The central issue was whether the capitalised defined term "Disease" is limited to a closed list of 33 named diseases in the policy or extends more generally to any human infectious or contagious disease. The High Court held that the defined, closed list governs and that Covid-19 is not covered under the ID extension; the insurers' construction succeeded.
- Malhotra Leisure Limited v Aviva Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 1090 (Comm) This case concerned whether water escaping from cold-water tank 18 on 11 July 2020 was accidental or deliberately caused and whether the claimant breached the Policy's fraud condition. The court found on the balance of probabilities that the escape resulted from gradual float-valve failure combined with partial/total blockages of the overflow and partial blockage of the Cold Water Down Service, and that there was no sufficient evidence of deliberate interference or dishonesty by the claimant. The insurer's fraud-based counterclaim and plea of disentitlement were dismissed and the insurer was declared obliged to indemnify under the policy.
- For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 This appeal concerned whether the Equality Act 2010’s references to “sex”, “woman” and “man” are displaced by section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 so that a trans person with a full Gender Recognition Certificate counts as their acquired sex for the Act’s purposes. The Supreme Court held that, for the provisions and contexts in issue (including sections 11 and 212(1) EA 2010 and the gender-representation target under the 2018 Act), those terms mean biological sex and that the EA 2010 contains “provision made” within section 9(3) GRA 2004 so section 9(1) does not operate to deem certificated sex throughout the EA 2010. The Scottish Ministers’ guidance treating trans women with a GRC as women for the 2018 Act target was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
- Daniel Makin v The Restaurant Muse Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 895 (KB) This dispute arises from an assault by a door supervisor outside the Muse Bar in August 2017 that a trial judge (HHJ Sephton KC) found caused the Claimant's stroke and that the Second Defendant was vicariously liable. The Claimant sued the Second Defendant's insurer (the Third Defendant) under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010; the court held that the Second Defendant had breached claims-notification conditions which were conditions precedent to the insurer's liability, and accordingly the Third Defendant is not liable to indemnify the Claimant under the 2010 Act.
- Watford Community Housing Trust v Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited [2025] EWHC 743 (Comm) This case decided a preliminary issue about whether other-insurance clauses in three policies meant the claimant suffered no loss from a broker’s admitted negligent failure to notify one insurer after a March 2020 data breach. The court held that the three other-insurance clauses, each purporting to make its policy excess to others, cancel one another out on construction, leaving a horizontal layer of primary cover (Cyber £1m + Combined £5m + PI £5m) so the claimant would have been entitled to indemnity up to the combined limits. The defendant’s arguments that a general rateable-proportion rule or the need for a trial on insurers’ likely conduct limited recovery were rejected.
- AON UK Limited & Ors v Howden Group Holdings Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1148 (KB) This case concerns Aon's multi‑defendant claims that Howden entities and certain former employees poached teams and misused confidential information, raising parallel English and Brazilian elements. The court stayed the claims against the Brazilian employee (12th defendant) to the Brazilian Labour Court but retained jurisdiction and refused to decline jurisdiction or grant summary disposal of Rome II arguments as to the Howden defendants and the 10th defendant. The court also refused to set aside the April 2024 service‑out order despite an innocent disclosure error, imposing only a limited costs consequence.
- Berytus Insurance & Reinsurance Company SAL v Golden Adventure Shipping SA [2025] EWHC 664 (Comm) This case concerns a Lebanese insurer's declaration claim under a marine policy against a Marshall Islands shipowner and a defendant challenge to English court jurisdiction based on an asymmetrical, non‑exclusive jurisdiction clause and an FNC waiver in the policy. The High Court held the Hague Convention did not apply, the clause is non‑exclusive so the claimant could sue outside Cyprus, the defendant's forum‑non‑conveniens challenge was limited by its waiver, and the defendant's jurisdiction challenge was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the claimant on the standard basis with a modest reduction in a junior brief fee, and the defendant was given 21 days to file a further acknowledgement of service.
- Kyiem Dormer v Jaheim Wilson & Ors [2025] EWHC 523 (KB) This liability-only judgment arises from a 12 April 2017 road traffic accident in which the Claimant, Kyiem Dormer, suffered serious injuries after a collision while on a Yamaha three-wheeled motorcycle that had been reported stolen. The court addressed whether the illegality defence barred recovery, whether the Second Defendant insurer was liable under the Road Traffic Act or as Art.75 insurer for the MIB, and contributory negligence; the judge assessed the Claimant's contributory negligence and ordered a 20% reduction in damages. The judgment also contains discussion of the scope of a policy's "Pillion Exclusion" and other insurer/MIB liability issues.
- Lonham Group Limited v Scotbeef Limited & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 203 This appeal concerned whether sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of a policy "Duty of Assured Clause" were pre‑contractual representations (governed by Part 2 of the Insurance Act 2015) or future warranties/conditions precedent (governed by Part 3). The Court of Appeal held those sub‑clauses were future warranties and conditions precedent; because the underlying trading terms (FSDF) were found not to have been incorporated, those warranties were breached during the policy period and Lonham had no liability to indemnify. The court also rejected the respondent's challenges based on construction and the Act's transparency/contracting‑out provisions.
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE & Ors v Bath Racecourse Company Limited & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 153 This appeal concerns whether limits in composite business-interruption policies apply per named insured or in aggregate, and whether CJRS furlough payments must be deducted under policy savings clauses. The Court of Appeal held the composite policies operate effectively as separate contracts so specified limits (POAND/DOA/CPC) apply to each insured, and that CJRS payments reduced employment costs and must be taken into account under the savings clauses using a concurrent-causation approach. The insurers' and insureds' appeals were dismissed, with some factual questions reserved for further trial.
- Roger Leggett & Ors v American International Group UK Limited [2025] EWHC 278 (Comm) This case concerned whether AIG, insurer under a solicitors' professional indemnity policy, was liable to indemnify 41 claimants who had obtained judgments against Giambrone Law LLP in respect of losses from purchases of off‑plan apartments. The central issue was whether the Policy covered the judgments, in particular where some liabilities arose from novation of pre‑existing liabilities of the prior practice (the Firm) to the LLP. The court held that AIG is bound to indemnify six named claimants for their deposits and is liable, subject to identification, for sums properly attributable to the LLP's own performance or failures, but is not bound to indemnify where Fordham J had assessed damages as flowing from novation of the Firm’s pre‑existing liabilities.
- Sandra Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline UK Limited [2025] EWHC 186 (KB) This case concerns the Defendant's 2023 application for an extension of time and/or relief from sanction to pursue a non-party costs order (NPCO) against Brit UW Ltd under a 2020 case management deadline. The judge held that the court-ordered deadline did not automatically create an implied sanction attracting CPR 3.9, but the application nonetheless fell to be assessed under the overriding objective and Denton-type considerations. Applying those principles, the Defendant failed to provide sufficient explanation for more-than-three-years' delay and the extension/relief was refused.
- Norman Hay PLC (in Members' Voluntary Liquidation) v Marsh Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 58 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.
- Nathaniel Birley & Anor v Heritage Independent Living Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 44 This appeal concerned whether costs rules allowing recovery of CFA success fees and ATE premiums in media/privacy claims can operate alongside Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) when the claim also pleads personal injury, and whether the claimants’ pre-action conduct justified striking out the claim and disapplying QOCS. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, held that the costs regimes can co-exist in the circumstances pleaded, upheld HHJ Owen’s conclusion that QOCS applied and that the District Judge was wrong to strike out for abuse of process, and ordered the insurer(s) to be joined after the defendant company’s dissolution.
- Tyson International Company Limited v GIC, RE, India, Corporate Member Limited [2025] EWHC 77 (Comm) This commercial insurance dispute concerned whether English-court jurisdiction under earlier Market Reform Contracts (MRCs) or New York arbitration under subsequently issued facultative MURA certificates governed coverage disputes between TICL and GIC. The court held that facultative MURA certificates are ordinarily contractual and supersede earlier MRC terms absent qualifying provisions, but that the Facultative Certificates' Confusion Clause gives precedence to the MRCs where there is inconsistency; applying those construction principles the competing forum clauses were irreconcilable and GIC failed to show a concluded arbitration agreement. TICL's application for final anti-suit/anti-arbitration relief succeeded and GIC's stay and jurisdictional challenge were refused.
- FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited & Ors v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm) This judgment concerns claims by three secured parties for anti-suit injunctions against VietJet arising from exclusive jurisdiction clauses in English-law JOLCO financing, head lease and sub-lease documents for four Airbus aircraft. The High Court (Commercial Court) heard the ASI applications and related jurisdictional challenges on an expedited, final basis during vacation, with the central issue being whether the EJCs relied on by the claimants applied to the disputes. The supplied text does not include the court's dispositive reasoning or the final orders, so no clear outcome can be stated from the material provided.
- Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sari & Ors [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm) This case concerns the Bank's enforcement proceedings arising from Sharjah and BVI judgments and related interlocutory applications including (i) the Tenth Defendant's application to set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, (ii) the Claimants' application for a Worldwide Freezing Order, (iii) strike-out/summary judgment applications by other defendants, and (iv) the Claimants' application to amend. The judge found that, on the material before the court, permission to serve out in respect of the Tenth Defendant and the standalone WWFO were not justified (the court was not persuaded gateway (3) applied and would not exercise its discretion to permit service out); permission to amend was allowed subject to preserving existing limitation arguments and further drafting, and a further two-day hearing was directed to address outstanding points.
- Sky UK Limited & Anor v Riverstone Managing Agency Limited & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1567 This appeal concerned recovery under a construction all risks policy for water ingress to Sky Central's timber roof during the Period of Insurance, and whether the insurer must pay for deterioration and spread of damage occurring after that period. The Court of Appeal held that where insured damage occurred during the POI, the insurer could be liable for the reasonable cost of remedying foreseeable deterioration and development of that damage occurring after the POI, that "damage" includes tangible physical change impairing value or usefulness (so wetting can be damage), that reasonable investigation costs are recoverable, and that the deductible "any one event" refers to the cause of loss and could be treated as a single event here. The appeals were allowed on those principal points and the case was remitted to the trial judge for re-quantification and further directions.
- The Kingdom of Spain v The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1536 This appeal arises from multiple challenges to the recognition and enforcement of a large Spanish judgment arising from the 2002 Prestige oil spill, focusing on whether prior arbitration awards and CJEU reasoning affected registration under Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation and whether equitable compensation or injunctive relief were available. The court concluded (from the parts of the judgment supplied) that Mr Schaff's arbitration award prevents recognition of the Spanish judgment under Article 34(1), and that equitable compensation was not an available remedy in the circumstances.
- Elysa Alton v Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen [2024] EWCA Civ 1435 This appeal concerned whether a claimant's defectively-pleaded claim against a Polish insurer should have been struck out. The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, concluding the judge was entitled to refuse strike-out because the defect appeared capable of being cured by amendment and the balance of prejudice favoured allowing the claim to proceed (with an unless order available if there had been prevarication). The judge's decision was within his discretion and showed no error of principle.
- International Entertainment Holdings Limited & Ors v Allianz Insurance PLC [2024] EWCA Civ 1281 This appeal concerns the interpretation of a Non‑Damage Denial of Access (NDDA) clause invoked after Covid‑19 related closures, particularly whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care qualified as a "policing authority" under the clause. The court (Lady Justice Males, agreeing with the trial judge) held that the Secretary of State was not a "policing authority", which was dispositive and required dismissal of the policyholders' claims. The judgment also records the judge's answers on related interpretation issues (for example, that a Covid‑19 case does not, without more, amount to an "incident likely to endanger human life"; that such an incident must occur within the one‑mile radius; that the £500,000 limit applies per premises and there is no aggregate £500,000), which the court addressed though those points were not decisive here.
- Adrian Stuart Greville Crabb & Ors v TUI Airways Ltd [2024] EWHC 2589 (KB) Pilots employed by TUI challenged changes to their permanent health insurance (PHI) following a collective agreement with BALPA, alleging breach of contract and of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The court found that certain handbook provisions and the PB guide were incorporated into contracts, that PHI was payable to age 65, and that paragraph 5.1 prevented unilateral employer changes but did not prevent consensual variation by collective agreement; the introduction of PIP via collective bargaining did not breach the implied term. Judgment was entered for the Defendant.
- London International Exhibition Centre Plc v Allianz Insurance Plc & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 This Court of Appeal decision concerned business‑interruption insurance clauses that cover a notifiable disease "at the premises" and whether government pandemic measures were causally linked to such insured occurrences. The court applied the Supreme Court's concurrent‑cause approach from FCA v Arch, holding it was sufficient that the government's action responded to the outbreak as a whole and included at least one occurrence at the insured premises, and that authorities did not need actual knowledge or reporting of that occurrence. It also held occurrences before formal notifiability did not meet a notifiable‑disease peril, and construed "Public Authority" and "Medical Officer of Health" broadly to include national bodies and officers. All appeals and cross‑appeals were dismissed.
- John Colin Graham v Fidelidade – Companhia De Seguros SA [2024] EWHC 2010 (KB) This was an application by the insurer to set aside two without‑notice orders extending time for service and to challenge permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction after a serious road‑traffic injury in Portugal. The court held the extension orders were valid (or cured/waived), admitted additional evidence, and on rehearing granted permission to serve out because the claim satisfied the merits test, the CPR PD6B tort gateway (Ground 9), and England was the natural forum. The defendant’s applications were dismissed and the claim treated as validly served.
- Jane Nicholls & Anor v Mapfre Espana Cia de Seguros y Reaseguros SA This Court of Appeal judgment concerns whether interest payable under article 20(4) of the Spanish Insurance Contract Act 50/1980 is substantive (governed by Rome II) or procedural (governed by English law) when Spanish-law damages are assessed in England, and whether a claimant may pursue subrogated medical and repatriation costs paid by her travel insurer. The court held that interest under Act 50/1980 is not a matter of procedure for the purposes of article 1(3) of Rome II and was properly awarded; it also held that, even if it were procedural, English courts could in any event award an equivalent rate by statutory discretion; and it held that Ms Sedgwick could bring the subrogated claim in her own name and would hold recoveries for her insurer.
- Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd & Ors v Afghan Global Insurance Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1426 (Comm) This case concerned whether clause 4.2 of an AFB Political Violence reinsurance wording excluded cover for loss of a warehouse seized by the Taliban, and whether the policies covered deprivation (loss of possession) as opposed to physical damage. The court held clause 4.2, read in its ordinary and natural meaning, excludes loss caused by seizure (including seizure by non-state actors such as the Taliban) and that the Reinsurances cover property damage only, not mere deprivation. Reinsurers were granted summary judgment and Anham's declarations of indemnity were dismissed.
- Aercap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company & Ors v PJSC Insurance Company Universalna & Ors [2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm) This case concerned challenges to the English court's jurisdiction to hear claims under airline Operator insurance/reinsurance policies in respect of aircraft that remained in Ukraine after Russia's February 2022 invasion. The central issue was whether exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Ukrainian courts were binding, enforceable and applicable to the Claimants' claims, or whether there were "strong reasons" to allow the cases to proceed in England. The court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clauses were binding and enforceable, applied to the Claimants' claims, and that there were not strong reasons to refuse a stay; the Defendants' applications succeeded.
- Premia Reinsurance Limited & Anor v Amtrust International Insurance Limited [2024] EWHC 1078 (Comm) This case concerned the construction of clause 3.22 of a Reinsurance Framework Agreement, specifically whether the £1,000,000 cap/collar described as applying "From Completion" covered expenses referable to Q2–Q4 2019 or only expenses arising/paid after Completion. The Court preferred the Claimants' construction: "From Completion" fixes when obligations arise but does not temporally limit the expenses to which the cap/collar applies, so the Q2–Q4 2019 expenses fell within clause 3.22. The Defendant's reliance on an unpleaded September 2019 letter as part of the factual matrix was rejected. The judge indicated agreed calculations produced a net sum payable to the Claimants and gave directions to finalise orders.
- Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean & Gulf Insurance and Reinsurance Co [2024] EWCA Civ 481 This case concerned whether an Existing Property exclusion (Endorsement 2) in a composite offshore-construction insurance policy excluded cover for damage to property owned by any of the defined Principal Insureds or only by the particular Principal Assured making the claim. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s interpretation that the exclusion applied to property owned by any of the Principal Insureds unless that property was specifically scheduled (bought back), and dismissed Technip’s appeal, denying indemnity for the loss attributable to the KJO-owned platform.
- Norman Hay PLC (in Members’ Voluntary Liquidation) v Marsh Limited [2024] EWHC 1039 (Comm) This is Marsh Ltd's application to strike out or obtain summary judgment on Norman Hay PLC's claim that Marsh negligently failed to arrange worldwide non‑owned auto cover, leading Norman Hay to fund a US settlement after a 2018 Ohio hire‑car fatality. The principal issue was whether Norman Hay's pleaded case (including an alternative "loss of opportunity" case and factual causation) was so deficient or untenable that it could be disposed of without trial. The High Court refused to strike out or grant summary judgment, concluding the matters pleaded required trial.
- Project Angel Bidco Limited v Axis Managing Agency Limited & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 446 This appeal concerned the scope of cover under a Buyer Side Warranty & Indemnity Insurance Policy taken out by Project Angel Bidco Ltd in connection with its acquisition of Knowsley Contractors Ltd, and in particular whether an "ABC Liability" exclusion negated coverage for certain anti-bribery and corruption warranties. The court found the exclusion's wording created a fundamental inconsistency with the insured warranties and accepted the purchaser's proposed linguistic correction as the obvious cure. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
- Bellini (N/E) Ltd v Brit UW Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 435 This appeal concerned whether clause 8.2.6 of a commercial business‑interruption policy provided cover for COVID‑19 related loss in the absence of "damage" as defined in the policy. The Court of Appeal agreed with the deputy judge that clause 8.2.6, read in context, required physical loss, physical damage or physical destruction as a prerequisite to cover. Accordingly the clause did not provide cover where there was no such damage.
- The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 884 (Comm) The case arises from cargo claims after the sinking of the X-Press Pearl and a dispute whether those claims may be pursued against the Club in Sri Lanka rather than by arbitration in London under the Insurance Contract. The judge found that the Cargo Claimants had chosen not to engage with the English proceedings, concluded there was no reason to refuse the Club's request for antisuit relief, and granted the declaratory relief sought concerning the effect of Rule 3.1.1 (a "pay to be paid" clause) under the contract governed by English law.
- Tyson International Company Limited v Partner Reinsurance Europe SE [2024] EWCA Civ 363 This dispute concerned whether a reinsurance document issued by Partner Re on 8 July 2021 (a MURA-style form providing for New York law and arbitration) was intended to replace an earlier Market Reform Contract (MRC) dated 1 July 2021 (providing for English law and exclusive jurisdiction). The judge held that the later document superseded the earlier contract and that the arbitration clause was valid, and he stayed Tyson's English court action; the Court of Appeal dismissed Tyson's appeal. The court also addressed Tyson's separate application for an anti-arbitration injunction, observing that, had the MRC remained operative, an injunction might have been granted because permitting both proceedings to continue would risk duplication and conflicting decisions.
- Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB) This case concerned a personal injury claim after the claimant fell from a pier; liability had been agreed at two-thirds and the hearing concerned quantum and allegations of fundamental dishonesty. The judge found widespread dishonesty by the claimant, decided not to order repayment of interim payments to avoid likely homelessness, and dismissed the claim on the grounds set out in the judgment.
- Zephyrus Capital Aviation Partners 1d Limited & Ors v Fidelis Underwriting Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 734 (Comm) This judgment concerns challenges to the English court's jurisdiction to hear claims under Operator Policies relating to aircraft that remained in Russia after its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, centring on whether reinsurance contracts with cut-through clauses and Russian governing/jurisdiction clauses permit English proceedings. The material issues include the contractual documentation (certificates, slips, cut-through clauses), whether Russian law or measures affect entitlement to recovery, and contested factual and expert matters about Russian state influence and the effect of Russian measures. The supplied text does not include the court's final dispositive decision on the jurisdictional challenges.
- James Lonsdale & Ors v Wedlake Bell LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 712 (KB) This case concerns a professional negligence claim by a settlor, trustees and intended beneficiaries arising from negligent solicitor advice that prevented a discretionary trust being varied before beneficiaries' interests crystallised. The key issue was whether the claims were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, in particular when the claimants acquired the requisite knowledge under s.14. The judge concluded that the trustees and children have viable claims, that the settlor did not acquire the necessary knowledge for limitation purposes until January 2019, and dismissed the defendants' applications to strike out or for summary judgment.
- Delos Shipholding SA & Ors v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE & Ors [2024] EWHC 719 (Comm) This case concerns a claim under a war-risks insurance policy after the Capesize vessel WIN WIN was detained by Indonesian authorities for nearly a year in 2019 and the claimants treated that detention as a constructive total loss. Insurers resisted payment on several grounds including alleged lack of fortuity, a policy exclusion, breach of duty to sue and labour, and material non-disclosure. The court found that the claim under the Policy succeeds, but dismissed the claim described in the judgment as "under A."
- Chike-C Onyeari v Churchill Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 531 (KB) This case concerns insurer (Underwriters) rights arising from a struck-out personal injury claim brought by Mr Onyeari against his employer company and related procedural disputes (appeal permission, a Tomlin Order, amendment and a Part 8 claim). The court dismissed Mr Onyeari's permission to appeal, set aside the Tomlin Order, allowed amendment of the Part 8 claim and transferred that claim; it found the Underwriters entitled to judgment for breach of contract (damages to be assessed) and that Mr Onyeari may be liable for inducing breach of contract (also subject to assessment). Directions were given for assessment of damages and related procedural steps.
- H1 & Anor v W & Ors [2024] EWHC 382 (Comm) The insurer applied to remove the sole arbitrator (W) for apparent bias in an arbitration under a film production insurance policy; the pleaded grounds focused on W's comments about witnesses and the insurer relied on the objective "real possibility" test. The judgment records that the grounds were narrowed to remarks at a procedural hearing and that the court decided the judgment should be published with the parties, witnesses and arbitrator anonymised. The supplied text does not include the court's determination on the removal application.
- Oaxaca Limited t/a Wahaca v QIC Europe Limited [2024] EWHC 394 (Comm) This case concerns summary judgment and an application for an interim payment by two restaurant chains (Wahaca and Flat Iron) claiming business interruption losses under non-damage/denial-of-access policy extensions for Covid‑19 related government measures. The material issue was whether the Claimants had established on the available material that, if tried, they would obtain judgment for a substantial sum under CPR r 25.7(1)(c). The judge held she was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Claimants would succeed or that a substantial judgment would be obtained, and therefore refused the interim payment application.
- Hamsard One Thousand and Forty-Three Limited v AE Insurance Brokers Limited [2024] EWHC 262 (Comm) This was a claim by Hamsard against its former broker AE for alleged negligent broking which Hamsard said led to Fusion avoiding a property insurance policy; central issues included alleged nondisclosures on the proposal form, witness credibility (notably Mr Beresford) and the extent of recoverable loss. The judge rejected Hamsard's evidence where unsupported, found failings in parts of Hamsard's expert evidence and concluded Hamsard had not proved recoverable loss. The claim was dismissed.
- Unipolsai Assicurazioni SpA v Covea Insurance PLC [2024] EWHC 253 (Comm) This is an appeal to the High Court (Commercial Court) from two partial final arbitration awards about whether business interruption losses from the Covid-19 pandemic "arose out of and were directly occasioned by one catastrophe" under two property catastrophe excess of loss reinsurances, and about the effect of differing "Hours Clauses" limiting individual losses to specified consecutive-hour periods. The Covéa and Markel arbitration tribunals both held that the Covid-19 losses constituted one catastrophe; the Covéa Award held the Covéa Hours Clause did not confine recovery to closures within the stipulated period, while the Markel Award held the Markel Hours Clause did have that confining effect. The supplied judgment text does not include the court's final determinations on the appeals.
- Tyson International Company Limited v GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Limited [2024] EWHC 236 (Comm) This is a reinsurance dispute between TICL and GIC about whether English courts or arbitration govern disputes under the 2021–22 reinsurance. The court held that the jurisdiction provisions of the original Slip Policies/MRCs apply, that the Scott v Avery arbitration clause in the later Facultative Certificates is inapplicable, and continued the interim anti-suit injunction (ASI) until any jurisdiction challenge to the English Court is determined. The judge directed the parties to agree (or the court will fix) a timetable for any such jurisdictional challenge and further evidence.
- Carol Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 53 This appeal concerned whether Irwin Mitchell owed Mrs Miller a retainer-based or common‑law duty to advise or notify the tour operator/insurer about her 2014 injury earlier than 22 February 2016, and whether any earlier advice would have produced recoverable insurance compensation. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's findings that no express or implied retainer (or equivalent duty) arose before about 25 January 2016, there was no duty to notify earlier, and that even on the counterfactual the insurer would likely have declined cover; the appeal was dismissed.
- Gatwick Investment Limited & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2024] EWHC 124 (Comm) This judgment addresses preliminary issues in multiple business-interruption insurance claims arising from "non-damage" prevention of access (NDDA/POAND-type) clauses, brought by several groups of insureds (including Gatwick, Hollywood Bowl, Fullers, Starboard, Liberty Retail, Bath Racecourse and IEH) against insurers led by Liberty Mutual. The core issues identified for determination were trigger and causation, policy limits, and the treatment of furlough (CJRS) receipts; the judgment sets out the background, the relevant policy wordings and the scope of the preliminary issues. The supplied text does not include the court's detailed answers or final determinations on those preliminary issues, so the specific outcomes are not ascertainable here.
- Herculito Maritime Ltd and others v Gunvor International BV and others [2024] UKSC 2 This dispute concerns liability of cargo interests to contribute to general average for a US$7.7m ransom paid after MT POLAR was seized by Somali pirates, and whether voyage-charter war-risk and Gulf of Aden clauses (and parts incorporated into the bills of lading) barred the shipowner from claiming such losses from charterer or bill of lading holders because additional insurance cover was procured. The arbitration tribunal upheld the cargo interests on issues (1)–(4); the Commercial Court agreed with the arbitrators on (1) and (2) but allowed the shipowner's appeal on (3) and (4); the Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal and held that the cargo interests did have to contribute to general average. The Supreme Court judgment text supplied is incomplete and does not record a final Supreme Court disposition in the omitted part.
- Various Eateries Trading Limited v Allianz Insurance Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 10 This appeal concerned whether Various Eateries' business-interruption losses from Covid-19 could be aggregated as arising from a single occurrence (the Wuhan outbreak) and whether insured "Covered Events" occurring during the policy Period of Insurance could give rise to recoverable losses extending beyond that period. The judge rejected Allianz's aggregation argument that the Wuhan introduction was the relevant single occurrence as too remote, treated certain UK government measures (16 March closure instructions, 20 March enforced closures, and restrictions from 24 September 2020) as relevant single occurrences, and held that a Covered Event during the Period of Insurance may give rise to Business Interruption Loss continuing beyond the Period of Insurance subject to the Maximum Indemnity Period. The Court of Appeal agreed with and dismissed the insurer's appeal and the insured's cross-appeal on the issues recorded.
- Axis Speciality Europe SE v Discovery Land Company LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 7 This appeal concerned whether Axis could rely on a policy exclusion by reason of alleged condonation by Mr Prentice of Mr Jones' dishonesty, and alternatively whether multiple claims could be aggregated under the policy's aggregation clause. The judge found Mr Prentice did not condone the dishonesty and that the claims did not arise from similar or related transactions for aggregation; the Court of Appeal (Andrews LJ) dismissed Axis's appeal and upheld those conclusions.
- Aston Martin MENA Limited v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited [2023] EWHC 3285 (Comm) This dispute concerned AMMENA's termination of an Agency Agreement with AML over alleged non-payment of Minimum Commitment Marketing Payments (MCMP) and AML's asserted right to set off sums under an indemnity. The court found MCMP for 2020 only became due at end of January 2021, did not need to determine the contractual right of set-off, and concluded that AMMENA was entitled to terminate for AML's non-payment of the 2019 MCMP (or the outstanding balance). Some counterclaim aspects were accepted by AMMENA and interest/quantification issues were to be resolved at a consequential hearing.
- UK P&I Club NV v República Bolivariana De Venezuela [2023] EWCA Civ 1497 This case concerns the Court of Appeal's review of a judge's refusal to grant UK P&I Clubs an anti-suit injunction restraining Venezuela, a sovereign state, from pursuing proceedings in Venezuela, in light of section 13(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 and article 6(1) ECHR. The court upheld the judge's conclusion that the domestic rule barring injunctions against states did not impair the essence of the Clubs' article 6 rights, was a proportionate restriction pursuing legitimate domestic objectives, and that section 13(2) should not be read down under the Human Rights Act. The appeal was dismissed.
- Tyson International Company Limited v Partner Reinsurance Europe SE [2023] EWHC 3243 (Comm) The dispute concerned two successive reinsurance contracts covering the same risk but containing inconsistent forum selection clauses (one providing for New York arbitration, the other for exclusive English jurisdiction), and rival applications: D sought a stay to compel arbitration in New York, while C sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain that arbitration. The judge found C had inexcusable delay in seeking anti-suit relief (waiting about six months after arbitration began) and indicated that, had he needed to decide the ASI on the merits, he would have refused it in the exercise of his remedial discretion. The court was minded to grant permission to appeal.
- The University of Exeter v Allianz Insurance PLC [2023] EWCA Civ 1484 This appeal concerned whether damage caused in 2021 by the controlled detonation of a World War II bomb was "occasioned by war" and therefore excluded under the insurer's war exclusion. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's alternative finding that the dropping of the bomb in 1942 and its detonation in 2021 were concurrent causes of approximately equal efficacy, and because the 1942 event was excluded as "occasioned by war" the claim failed. The appeal was dismissed.
- Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] UKSC 41 This appeal concerned whether the Limitation Act 1980 sections 32(1) and 32(2) postponed the start of the six-year limitation period for a borrower’s claim arising from non‑disclosure of PPI commission. The Supreme Court held that section 32(1) applied because the lender had deliberately concealed the existence and amount of the commission, but section 32(2) did not apply because the lender had not been shown to have known it was committing a breach of duty. The result was that the claim was not time‑barred and the defendant’s appeal was dismissed.
- Project Angel Bidco Limited (In Administration) v Axis Managing Agency Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 2649 (Comm) This was a trial of preliminary issues under a Buyer Side Warranty & Indemnity Insurance Policy arising from alleged breaches of SPA warranties (including anti‑bribery / corruption matters) following the claimant's acquisition of a target company; the claimant, now in administration, sought up to the Policy limit of £5m. The central issue was the proper construction of the Policy, in particular whether clause 5.2.15 (an ABC exclusion) excluded the losses claimed. The court concluded for the defendants on the construction issues such that the alleged breaches were excluded and therefore ruled against the claimant on those issues; the estoppel argument was not necessary to decide given the construction outcome.
- The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v The Kingdom of Spain (M/T ‘Prestige’) [2023] EWHC 2473 (Comm) This dispute arises from proceedings after the 2002 sinking of the M/T Prestige, between the vessel's P&I insurer (the Club) and the Kingdom of Spain, concerning arbitration and enforcement of awards and Spanish judgments. The court held that the Club's appeal against the Registration Order succeeded and dismissed the main part of Spain's challenge to Sir Peter Gross's First Award, but concluded that Sir Peter Gross did not have jurisdiction to grant an injunction against Spain and could not award damages in lieu of an injunction. The court granted Spain limited permission to appeal specified points and adjourned further steps on parts of Spain's applications.
- Marcus Herring v Claire Sandbrook & Ors [2023] EWHC 1332 (KB) This judgment concerns applications to strike out claims by Marcus Herring arising from the seizure and sale by enforcement agents of items said to be partnership property following enforcement of an arbitration award. The court refused to strike out Marcus's application, concluded that the seizure and sale involved breaches of Schedule 12 within the meaning of paragraph 66(1)(a), and held that Marcus can properly bring claims for loss both personally and on behalf of the partnership, while expressly reserving decision on liability or defences under paragraph 66.
- Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Ors v Tughans [2023] EWCA Civ 999 This appeal concerned whether a solicitors' compulsory professional indemnity insurance policy covers a claimant's damages claim that includes the firm's fee (the "Tughans Fee"). The arbitrator had declared cover; the insurers appealed but the Court of Appeal (Popplewell LJ, with agreement) would dismiss the appeal, holding that where an ascertained civil liability includes a fee element that constitutes a loss to an individual partner under the composite policy, the Policy can respond.
- George on High Limited & Anor v Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers Limited & Anor [2023] EWHC 1963 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether the insurer NIAC or the broker was liable for losses following a 2019 fire at The George hotel, including business interruption, contents, stock and lost rent. The court found NIAC liable to indemnify GOR for contents (£574,805) and stock (£23,833), treated the business-interruption and other allocation issues as set out in the judgment, and held the broker liable to GOH for uninsured loss of rental income (£776,000).
- Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean and Gulf Cooperative Insurance and Reinsurance Company [2023] EWHC 1859 (Comm) This dispute concerns Technip's claim for indemnity under Section II of a WELCAR offshore construction insurance policy after an allision between a chartered tug and a wellhead platform, and whether Technip had legal liability to KJO and whether policy exclusions (notably an Existing Property Endorsement and a Watercraft exclusion) precluded cover. The judgment materials supplied describe the factual background, the parties' positions, legal principles about settlement and liability, and detailed quantum evidence, but the central part of the court's reasoning and the final determination are omitted from the supplied text. Because the operative part of the decision is missing, no definitive outcome can be stated from the provided extract.
- World Challenge Expeditions Limited v Zurich Insurance Company Ltd [2023] EWHC 1696 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether Zurich's corporate personal accident and business travel policy indemnified World Challenge Expeditions Ltd (WCE) for refunds it paid to customers after COVID-19 forced cancellation of 2020 expeditions. The court held that WCE is entitled to indemnity for refunds actually paid to Challengers for expeditions due to depart 1 June–31 August 2020 and cancelled on or after 20 April 2020, subject to credit for any third‑party recoveries in money or money's worth. No indemnity is due for refunds only offered but not physically paid, or for deferred trips/credit-notes unless cash refunds are ultimately made. The parties were to address quantum separately.
- URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 772 This commercial dispute concerned when a tortious cause of action accrues against consulting engineers for defective design that causes no immediate physical damage, and whether the developer BDW could amend to plead contribution and rely on extended limitation periods in the Building Safety Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed URS's substantive appeal on the Preliminary Issues and dismissed the appeal against permissions to amend, concluding BDW could bring a contribution claim and that the cause of action arose, at the latest, on practical completion; the BSA’s longer limitation periods were treated as having retrospective effect for these purposes.
- Bellini (N/E) Ltd trading as Bellini v Brit UW Limited [2023] EWHC 1545 (Comm) This case concerned whether clause 8.2.6 of a commercial business interruption insurance policy provided cover for COVID-19-related interruption in the absence of physical damage to the insured premises. The High Court held that on proper construction clause 8.2.6 required "damage" as defined in the policy (physical loss, physical damage or physical destruction), and therefore there could be no cover where no such physical damage had occurred.
- London International Exhibition Centre Plc v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 1481 (Comm) This commercial dispute concerns business interruption insurance claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the proper construction and causation principles applicable to "disease" and related extensions in multiple policy wordings. The material issues include whether occurrences of COVID-19 (and related government restrictions) fall within the policies' disease or denial-of-access extensions and the correct approach to causation between infection occurrences and insured loss. The supplied judgment text is incomplete and does not contain a clear statement of the court's final determinations or outcomes on those issues.
- PA (GI) Limited v Cigna Insurance Services (Europe) Limited [2023] EWHC 1360 (Comm) This reserved judgment concerns the construction of indemnities in a 2003 Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) and a 2006 Deed of Warranty and Indemnity (DWI) given by Cigna to PA (GI) Limited in respect of amounts paid by PAGI for redress of mis‑sold payment protection insurance (PPI). The court held that the DWI’s indemnity was broad and, as construed in the factual context, could cover liabilities for mis‑selling of the non‑life component of the relevant policies but not the life component, and that indemnities could extend to reasonable and bona fide settlements/redress (including under the DISP framework and complaints to the FOS), save where liabilities arose from fraud or dishonesty by the agent. The judgment also records that PAGI’s right to bring a claim under clause 3 of the DWI was not transferred under the 2011 Scheme.
- PizzaExpress Group Limited & Ors. v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE & Anor. [2023] EWHC 1269 (Comm) This commercial judgment concerns PizzaExpress's claim under an Aon Trio business-interruption policy for COVID-19 related losses and a preliminary issue about how the Policy's sub-limits aggregate. The court was asked whether certain sub-limits apply "any one Occurrence" (Insurers' case) or "any one Incident" (Claimants' case). The court determined the sub-limits are subject to aggregation on "any one Occurrence" unless otherwise stated, answering the preliminary issue for the Insurers.
- Sky UK Limited & Anor v Riverstone Managing Agency Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 1207 (Comm) This dispute concerned claims under a construction-all-risks policy for widespread failure of the timber roof at Sky Central, focusing principally on the proper construction of the Policy and the scope of the insurers' liability. The court found that the resolution turns largely on policy construction and accepted that the defendants’ case limited their exposure to damage occurring during the Period of Insurance, meaning their contribution to remedial works is constrained rather than covering the full cost of Sky’s preferred scheme. The judge noted Sky’s likely remedial scheme would probably be the works carried out, but rejected a basis to require the defendants to pay its entire cost; Mace had not identified sums recoverable to Practical Completion and pursued largely declaratory relief.
- Jane Nicholls & Anor v Mapfre Espana Compania de Seguros y Reaseguros SA [2023] EWHC 1031 (KB) This appeal arose from county-court awards of interest calculated under Article 20 of the Spanish Insurance Contract Act following personal injury claims arising in Spain, which Mapfre challenged. The judge found the lower courts had misdirected themselves in law in applying Spanish penalty-interest rules as a procedural sanction under English procedure, but concluded that the awards were nevertheless "the right awards" and dismissed the defendant's appeals.
- Quadra Commodities SA v XL Insurance Company SE & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 432 This appeal concerned whether Quadra Commodities had an insurable interest in specified cargoes of grain, bought from sellers who perpetrated a fraud, under a Marine Cargo Open Policy; the insurers appealed against the judge's judgment entered for Quadra. The Court of Appeal concluded that Quadra had an insurable interest both by payment or part payment and by having an immediate right to possession of the cargoes under Ukrainian law, and dismissed the insurers' appeal.
- Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 795 (KB) This case concerns Mr Al Sadeq's application challenging Dechert LLP and individual defendants' claims to legal professional privilege, their redaction approach, and a contention that privilege had been waived by pleading. The court considered challenges under the crime/fraud exception, advice and litigation privilege, redaction practice, and a specific waiver contention arising from paragraph 131 of the Amended Defence. The court found the defendants had applied proper redaction principles (including the dominant purpose test), rejected the waiver contention (the phrase "became apparent" was insufficient to show waiver and the defendants lacked apparent authority to waive clients' privilege), and dismissed the Privilege Application.
- DAVID FREDERICK CUCKOW v AXA INSURANCE UK PLC [2023] EWHC 701 (KB) This case concerned a claim by a homeowner against his insurer AXA for indemnity after cavity wall insulation documents went missing following the contractor MGL's liquidation and administration. The material issue was whether, on proper construction of the policy's Claims Notification and Claims Procedure Conditions, MGL (through its administrators Deloitte) breached those Conditions by failing to produce the documents after a reasonable request. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's finding that Deloitte had Knowledge of Importance and had effected a "Guilty Disposal" (partly intentional refusal and partly careless loss), so AXA was entitled to refuse indemnity.
- DC Bars Limited & Anor. v QIC Europe Ltd [2023] EWHC 245 (Comm) This is an application to stay High Court proceedings under a business interruption insurance policy in favour of arbitration. The sole issue was whether the policy's clause referring "any difference as to the amounts to be paid under this Policy (liability being otherwise admitted)" requires arbitration of the parties' dispute about additional COVID-related indemnities, given the insurer's admission was subject to application of a three-month Maximum Indemnity Period. The court held the dispute raised issues of liability (application of the indemnity limit) as well as quantum and dismissed the stay application.
- Brian Leighton (Garages) Limited v Allianz Insurance plc [2023] EWCA Civ 8 This appeal concerned whether damage to a petrol station forecourt and adjacent shop caused after a fuel-pipe leak fell within Section 1 Exclusion 9 of a motor-trade policy as "damage caused by pollution or contamination", thereby excluding cover for material damage and related business interruption. The deputy High Court judge held the contamination was excluded; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal (disallowing that reasoning).
- LAMIA CORPORATION SRL & OTHERS v TOKIO MARINE KILN SYNDICATES LIMITED & OTHERS [2022] EWHC 3323 (Comm) This litigation arises from the LaMia air crash of 29 November 2016 and concerns two related Commercial Court actions in which Aon and a panel of London reinsurers seek interlocutory anti‑suit injunctions (and final anti‑suit relief among the remedies claimed) against a group of individuals and other defendants. The claims turn on issues arising from a Bolivian‑law insurance policy and a facultative reinsurance placed on back‑to‑back terms, including allegations about coverage, premium lapses, and the reinsurers' duties to defend and to settle; the central procedural question before the court was whether anti‑suit relief should be granted. The extract supplied does not include the court’s ultimate decision on those applications, so no outcome can be stated from the provided text.
- Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson [2022] EWHC 3158 (KB) This appeal concerned whether a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) was the correct defendant to an application under regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 challenging fees charged by an enforcement agent, and whether a Notice of Enforcement had been served. The master had found the HCEO was not the appropriate defendant, that the Notice of Enforcement had been posted, and ordered the appellant to pay the HCEO's costs. Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed the appeal, upholding those conclusions.
- Greggs Plc v Zurich Insurance Plc [2022] EWHC 2545 (Comm) This is an expedited trial of preliminary issues in Greggs' claim against Zurich for business-interruption losses under a Marsh Resilience policy arising from Covid-19. The court accepted Greggs' primary aggregation case that the relevant "occurrences" can be the different governmental announcements/regulations, held that the PRCM Costs sub‑limit of £75,000 applies in addition to the Limit of Liability and (so) per SBIL, and ruled that government support (CJRS furlough payments and business‑rates relief) must be taken into account in assessing Greggs' loss before application of any SBIL limit.
- Stonegate Pub Company Limited v Amlin Corporate Member Limited & Ors. [2022] EWHC 2548 (Comm) Stonegate sued its insurers for COVID-19 related business interruption losses under a policy that included cover for notifiable diseases and prevention of access. A Stage 1 trial addressed causation and the effect of government business rates relief (BRR) announced in March 2020. The court held that those BRR measures were in consequence of a Covered Event (occurrence of COVID-19 in the Vicinity) and therefore, if business rates would have been payable out of Turnover, the BRR produced a saving of costs within the Policy's savings clause; if rates were not normally payable out of Turnover the savings-clause point does not apply and the insurers’ entitlement to benefit under general law remains unresolved. The court directed further submissions and orders reflecting those conclusions.
- Various Eateries Trading Limited v Allianz Insurance PLC [2022] EWHC 2549 (Comm) This judgment concerns preliminary issues about coverage under a Marsh Resilience Form policy for Various Eateries' Covid-19-related business interruption losses. The court rejected treating the pandemic or its initial outbreak in the vicinity as a single occurrence, but accepted that specific UK government actions on identifiable dates (notably 16 March 2020 and 20 March 2020, and certain later measures) could each constitute separate occurrences relevant to the policy. The court did not allocate particular losses to those occurrences at this stage.
- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Ors. v Tughans (a firm) [2022] EWHC 2589 (Comm) This was a Commercial Court hearing of three statutory challenges by RSA to an arbitral award that had declared RSA obliged to indemnify Tughans in respect of certain losses and liabilities. The material issue included whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction (s.67), committed a serious irregularity requiring remit (s.68(2)), or made an error of law (s.69). The court refused RSA's s.67 and s.69 challenges, allowed the s.68(2) challenge and remitted the award to the arbitrator, and endorsed the arbitrator's conclusion that a claim for damages equal to a fee under a subsisting contract can constitute a loss for which indemnity may be payable under the policy (subject to other prerequisites).
- QBE EUROPE SA/NV & Anor v GENERALI ESPAÑA DE SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) This was an application by QBE to restrain Spanish proceedings brought by Generali against QBE UK and to prevent Generali from commencing or joining QBE Europe to similar proceedings in Spain, on the basis those claims breached a London arbitration agreement in the insurance policy. The key issue was whether Generali's Spanish "direct action" claim fell outside the policy arbitration clause and whether strong reasons or discretion required refusal of anti-suit injunction (ASI) relief. Mr Justice Foxton concluded it was appropriate to grant the ASI relief sought to QBE UK and QBE Europe.
- UK P&I CLUB N.V. & Anor v REPÚBLICA BOLIVARIANA DE VENEZUELA [2022] EWHC 1655 (Comm) The case concerned the loss of a Venezuelan navy vessel after collision with the RCGS Resolute and the Clubs' applications for anti-suit relief to restrain Venezuela from pursuing civil claims in Curaçao and Venezuela in breach of an English-law London arbitration clause in the Resolute's P&I insurance. The court held that the Caracas claim must be brought in London arbitration as governed by the insurance contract, but that the Clubs were not entitled to a permanent anti-suit injunction against Venezuela by reason of section 13(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978.
- AIG Europe SA (formerly AIG Europe Ltd) & Ors. v John Wood Group Plc & Anor. [2022] EWCA Civ 781 The Court of Appeal considered whether excess liability insurance policies conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts such that pursuing related proceedings in Alberta would breach contract and justify anti-suit injunctions. The court held (agreeing with the judge below) that the relevant excess policies did provide for exclusive English jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, so injunctions were appropriate.
- PIRAEUS BANK AE v ANTARES UNDERWRITING LIMITED & Ors [2022] EWHC 1169 (Comm) This commercial dispute concerned whether prolonged Venezuelan detention of a vessel amounted to a constructive total loss under the owners' war risks policy and, if so, whether the mortgagee under a mortgagees' interest insurance (MII) policy could recover as assignee/loss payee. The court addressed construction of the war risks wording (including a 12‑month detainment deeming clause and exclusions) and the MII clause using the phrase "prima facie covered." The judge concluded the Bank's claim fails.
- RHYS EDWARDS & Ors v SLATER AND GORDON UK LIMITED [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB) This case concerns multiple claimant challenges to deductions made by Slater and Gordon from personal injury damages and related interlocutory case-management orders. The primary issues included whether the costs judge could order disclosure in Part 8 SOCA claims, whether security for costs or a stay was appropriate, and whether the defendant must answer Part 18 questions about alleged secret commissions connected to an ATE policy. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal in Edwards & others, allowed the claimant's appeal in Raubenheimer and ordered the defendant to answer the Part 18 requests; costs of the Raubenheimer appeal and the Edwards appeals were ordered payable by the defendant.
- RHYS EDWARDS & Ors v SLATER AND GORDON UK LIMITED This judgment arises from multiple solicitors-own-client assessment claims brought by former clients of Slater and Gordon challenging deductions from their damages and related disclosure, stay and security-for-costs applications. The central issues included whether a Part 8 SOCA hearing could involve disclosure, whether retainers/insurance arrangements made the litigations unlawful or champertous, and whether Part 18 answers about alleged secret commissions should be provided. The court dismissed the Defendant's appeal in Edwards, allowed the Claimant's appeal in Raubenheimer, ordered Part 18 answers and disclosure to be provided, and made the usual costs orders reflected in the text.
- Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Limited [2022] EWHC 973 (QB) This was a security-for-costs application by the defendant against four corporate claimants arising from failed option investments; the defendant sought about £85,000 security per claimant. Master Stevens exercised the court's discretion under CPR 25, finding it just to order security of £80,000 per claimant for incurred costs (65% on the standard basis) and 100% of estimated costs (£179,200), but refused to order security in respect of three specific defendant applications. The judge also permitted the claimants an opportunity to secure or top up adverse costs insurance (ATE) as a possible alternative to payment into court, subject to adequacy and anti-avoidance/solvency issues.
- Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Limited This judgment concerns a defendant's application for security for costs against four corporate claimants in a claim arising from failed option investments. The master ordered security of £80,000 for incurred costs (65% on the standard basis) and 100% of estimated costs (£179,200), totalling £259,200, but declined to order security in respect of three specified applications by the defendant; the court gave the claimants time to seek acceptable ATE cover as an alternative.
- Daniel James Colley v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2022] EWCA Civ 360 This appeal concerned whether the Motor Insurers' Bureau's (MIB) obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC extends to a vehicle for which an insurance policy existed at the time of the accident but was later avoided ab initio. The Court of Appeal upheld Freedman J's conclusion that the Article 3 insurance obligation does cover such cases, that the MIB is liable to compensate the victim, and the appeal was dismissed.
- QUADRA COMMODITIES S.A. v XL INSURANCE COMPANY SE [2022] EWHC 431 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether Quadra was entitled to indemnity under its all-risks insurance policy for loss caused by misappropriation, and whether the insurers breached the policy's implied term (s.13) by unreasonably delaying or mishandling the claim. The court found the loss was covered by the Misappropriation Clause and awarded Quadra an indemnity, but held that the insurers had reasonable grounds to dispute the claim and did not breach the implied term. Any outstanding quantum issues were left to the parties or further argument.
- Aviva Insurance Limited v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWCA Civ 15 This appeal concerned whether the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 and related regulations, as applied to employers' liability insurers, infringed article 1 of protocol 1 ECHR by requiring repayment of certain state benefits in personal injury and industrial disease claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and dismissed the insurers' cross-appeal, holding that the statutory scheme pursued a legitimate aim of recouping social security costs and did not violate A1P1 in the circumstances identified by the insurers.
- GEOFF HILL v GENERALI BIZTOSITÓ ZRT [2021] EWHC 3381 (QB) This case concerns whether an insurer's subrogated claim may be pursued in an English court in the name of an English insured together with the insured's own uninsured-loss claim, arising from a pre‑Brexit road accident in Germany. The judge below held that the English court had no jurisdiction over the subrogated claim and stayed that claim, while staying the uninsured-loss claim pending appeal; permission to appeal was granted.
- GEOFF HILL v GENERALI BIZTOSITÓ ZRT This appeal concerns whether an insurer's subrogated claim can be pursued in the name of an English-domiciled motorist in an English court alongside his uninsured-loss claim against a Hungarian insurer for a 2018 road accident in Germany. The judge below held the English court had no jurisdiction over the subrogated (insurer's) element and stayed that part of the proceedings, while permitting an appeal. Permission to appeal was granted.
- ABN Amro Bank N.V. v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors. [2021] EWCA Civ 1789 This case concerned insurance policy wording (including a Non-Avoidance Clause, "NAC") and whether parties could rely on an estoppel (by convention or representation) to defeat underwriters' reliance on alleged non-fraudulent misrepresentations. The court held that the NAC's clear wording precluded underwriters from rejecting claims or avoiding liability for non-fraudulent misrepresentations, and on that basis dismissed the appellant underwriters' appeal and allowed Edge's appeal in favour of Ark and Advent.
- Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 This case concerns a claim by Mr Lloyd seeking to represent millions of iPhone users in damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 for Google's alleged "Safari workaround" tracking. The central issue was whether compensation for "loss of control" of personal data can be awarded on a uniform, non‑individualised basis and whether the claim was suitable as a representative action. The Supreme Court held the claim had no real prospect of success because, to recover compensation under the Act for any individual, it was necessary to prove unlawful use of that individual's personal data by Google and that the individual suffered damage; permission to serve out was refused.
- London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Ins Assoc Ltd v Kingdom of Spain [2021] EWCA Civ 1589 This appeal concerned whether a UK court had jurisdiction and whether state immunity applied to an insurer's claims (arbitration, award-enforcement and judgment-enforcement claims) against Spain and France. The court held the States were not immune to the Club's claims; the court could appoint an arbitrator on the Arbitration Claim; the Award Claims raised no serious issue (so the court had no jurisdiction to determine them on domestic principles); and the Judgment Claims fell within Chapter II of the Brussels Recast Regulation as matters relating to insurance and therefore had to be brought in the defendants' domiciles (so the English court had no jurisdiction). Appeals were allowed or dismissed as set out in the judgment.
- Elliott v Hattens Solicitors (a firm) [2021] EWCA Civ 720 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Elliott's negligence claim against her solicitors was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 by reference to when "damage was first sustained." The Court of Appeal held the cause of action accrued when the lease and underlease were entered into because the solicitors' failures (failing to secure parental guarantees and failing to advise on insurance) had already caused measurable financial detriment by reducing the value and effectiveness of the package. The court allowed the appeal and held the claim was statute-barred.
- Jones v Zurich Insurance Plc [2021] EWHC 1320 (Comm) This is a claim by Mr Jones for the agreed value (£190,000) of a Rolex allegedly lost while skiing against Zurich under an agreed-value policy. The court found Mr Jones' oral evidence largely unreliable, identified a failure to disclose a prior jewellery loss in the proposal, and concluded on the balance of probabilities that Zurich would have declined to insure the risk had that claims history been disclosed. The court therefore held Zurich entitled to avoid the policy and refuse the claim, but ordered return of the premium.
- The London Steam-Ship Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain (M/T PRESTIGE) [2021] EWHC 1247 (Comm) This is an appeal by the London Steam‑Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd ("the Club") against a UK registration order for a Spanish judgment holding the Club liable (up to a US$1 billion policy limit) for pollution damage from the loss of the M/T Prestige. The principal contested issue addressed in the excerpt is whether Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 (public policy/human rights ground) prevented registration of the Spanish judgment; Mr Justice Butcher rejected the Club's contention that Article 34(1) applied on the basis of alleged breaches of fundamental rights. Further procedural steps (including an argument on the form of order and pending issues relating to a reference to the CJEU and related appeals) remained to be determined.
- Zurich Insurance PLC v Niramax Group Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 590 This is an appeal concerning Zurich's denial of an insurance claim after a fire at Niramax's premises, Zurich alleging Niramax failed to disclose Millennium's risk requirements and special terms at renewal and when adding the Eggersmann plant. The trial judge found material nondisclosure but that it did not induce Zurich to underwrite the December 2014 renewal and that Zurich would have declined only the Eggersmann extension in September 2015; Niramax recovered for its mobile plant but not the Eggersmann machine. The Court of Appeal dismissed Zurich's appeal.
- Burnett or Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Ltd This case concerns whether clause 14 ("deliberate acts") of a public liability policy excluded the insurer's liability for the death of Mr Grant allegedly caused by an employee, Mr Marcius. The material issue was whether the employee's conduct was a "deliberate act" within the meaning of the exclusion (including whether that phrase encompasses recklessness). The court held that clause 14 requires an act carried out with an intention to cause the type of injury in question (and rejected the insurer's reliance on recklessness on the facts), so the exclusion did not apply and the insurer's appeal was dismissed.
- Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions LLP This is an appeal from a failed claim by Mr Adams against the SIPP operator Carey arising from his transfer of a pension into a Carey SIPP and investment in "storepods". The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Adams' challenge to the Judge's dismissal of his COBS-based claim but allowed the appeal on the Section 27 claim under FSMA, finding that the unregulated introducer's conduct, viewed holistically, fell within article 53 and article 25(1) of the RAO and that the Section 27 claim was well-founded. The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant relief under Section 28.
- ABN Amro Bank NV v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 442 (Comm) This High Court (Commercial Court) judgment concerns ABN Amro Bank's insurance-related disputes with multiple underwriters and a broker arising from financed trade/stock transactions, and addresses construction of the relevant policies, alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation, rectification/estoppel issues, 'sue and labour' obligations, and alleged broker negligence. The supplied text sets out the issues, factual background and case structure but does not include the court's final findings or orders in the omitted middle portion, so the ultimate outcome is not ascertainable from the material provided.
- Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 9 This appeal concerned PwC's challenge to an order refusing to strike out or grant summary judgment on BTI's negligence claim arising from PwC's audits of AWA's 2007 and 2008 accounts. The Court of Appeal dismissed PwC's appeal, holding that BTI's claim could proceed and that the existence of a risk of inconsistent findings from separate trials did not render the proceedings an abuse of process. The court also concluded that summary disposal was inappropriate given new allegations and the prospect of different evidence.
- Arag Plc v Jones & Anor [2020] EWHC 3484 (Comm) This case concerns ARAG Plc's claim for contribution from Mr Jones after ARAG, as insurer, paid costs ordered against its insured, Ms Gibson, and Mr Jones as joint debtors. The court held the facts gave Ms Gibson a common-law cause of action for contribution as co-debtor and that the insurer, by subrogation, was entitled to pursue one-half of the agreed costs (£20,000). Judgment for £20,000 was directed, subject to a remaining procedural point.
- Butt & Ors v D'Amato This case concerns an application by the insurer (D3) for a preliminary reference under Article 267 TFEU about whether the Motor Insurance Codification Directive requires any particular method for distributing a limited policy indemnity between multiple road‑traffic victims. The judge concluded that the questions raised do not presently require a CJEU ruling, because the issues are primarily questions of Maltese law to be interpreted so as to give effect to the Directive and a reference would be premature until national preliminary issues are resolved; the application for a reference was refused.
- Spire Healthcare Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 3299 (Comm) This is a trial of an aggregation dispute under an RSA policy insuring Spire for liabilities arising from acts and omissions at two Spire hospitals by surgeon Ian Paterson; the material issue is whether the relevant claims derive from one original source/cause (which RSA says limits cover to £10m) or two separate original causes (which Spire says would permit recovery up to £20m). The provided text sets out the factual background of negligent and deliberate misconduct by Paterson but does not include the court's decision on the aggregation point.
- Banco San Juan Internacional Inc v Petroleos De Venezuela SA [2020] EWHC 2937 (Comm) BSJI issued summary judgment applications for two debt claims under English‑law credit agreements against PDVSA. The central contested issues in the material supplied are PDVSA’s defences that US sanctions or related legal doctrines (contractual suspension, illegality in the place of performance, Rome I Article 9(3)) or a alleged penalty clause might bar enforcement. The provided extract does not contain the court’s final decision on those applications.
- The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm) This test case, brought by the FCA, concerns whether and how a range of business interruption insurance wordings respond to losses from the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on construction of policy terms and the evidential burden on insureds to prove disease prevalence. The Court dealt with questions about what proof could suffice to discharge the insured's burden and noted that insurers had conceded that distribution-based or undercounting analyses could in principle discharge that burden; the Court reserved the form of declarations and directed further submissions.
- The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain [2020] EWHC 1920 (Comm) This case concerns four related Part 11 applications by the London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd against Spain and France arising from enforcement of arbitral awards and related judgments connected to the Prestige pollution incident. A material issue was whether the States enjoyed state immunity and whether the English court had jurisdiction over the Award Claims and the Judgment Claims. The judge concluded (on the material before him) that the States were not immune from any of the four actions, that the Court has jurisdiction in respect of the Award Claims, and that the Court has no jurisdiction or should decline jurisdiction in relation to the Judgment Claims.
- The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Spain (M/T "PRESTIGE") [2020] EWHC 1582 (Comm) This judgment concerns the Club's application to serve arbitration proceedings out of the jurisdiction and for the court to appoint an arbitrator under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against the Kingdom of Spain. The central issues were whether Spain enjoyed state immunity from these claims and whether the court should exercise its s.18 power to appoint an arbitrator. The court rejected Spain's state immunity plea and concluded that the requirements for appointment under s.18 are satisfied, save in relation to the Club's proposed claim for breach of contract.
- Public Joint Stock Company ("Rosgosstrakh") v Starr Syndicate Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1557 (Comm) This reserved judgment concerns the claimant's application for summary judgment to recognise and enforce three Russian court judgments arising from a reinsurance dispute under a policy covering Sukhoi Superjet test/certification flights after a 2012 crash. The material issue addressed was whether the defendants' defences (notably alleged bias and lack of jurisdiction in the Russian proceedings) had no real prospect of success such that summary judgment should be ordered. The court found that the claimant had not established that the defence of bias had no real prospect of success and dismissed the summary judgment application on that ground.
- Aspen Underwriting Ltd and others v Credit Europe Bank NV [2020] UKSC 11 This appeal concerned whether the English High Court had jurisdiction over insurers' claims against a Dutch-domiciled bank under a hull insurance policy with an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and various assignments/ loss-payable provisions. The material issue was whether the bank, as named loss payee/assignee, fell within "matters relating to insurance" and the protected class in Chapter II, section 3 of the Brussels Regulation Recast so as to be sued only in the courts of its domicile. The Supreme Court held that the bank was the policy "beneficiary" for the purposes of section 3 and article 14, and therefore the English courts had no jurisdiction over the insurers' claims against the bank.
- Niramax Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 535 (Comm) This dispute arose after a fire destroyed a new Eggersmann sorting machine and other plant at Niramax; Niramax claimed c.£4.5m under its contractors' mobile plant insurance and Zurich resisted, seeking to avoid the policy for nondisclosure and other grounds. The court heard factual and expert evidence on disclosure/inducement and on valuation. The judge found Niramax's claim succeeded in part — recovery was allowed for the non‑Eggersmann equipment, an extra premium charged for a September extension must be returned, and Zurich's counterclaim failed.
- Endurance Corporate Capital Ltd v Sartex Quilts & Textiles Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 308 This appeal concerned whether an insured must prove a genuine, fixed and settled intention to reinstate damaged property (and, for buildings, to reinstate on the same site in the same style) before recovering reinstatement costs under a property insurance policy that does not itself fix the measure of loss. The Court of Appeal rejected the insurer's contention and upheld the trial judge's award based on the agreed cost of reinstatement, concluding that the insurer had not quantified any allowable deductions for betterment. The appeal was dismissed.
- Gazprom Export LLC v DDI Holdings Ltd [2020] EWHC 303 (Comm) The claim concerned allegations by the Principal Defendants (related companies) that Gazprom Export (GPE) breached competition law in respect of gas supplies to companies in Bulgaria, and GPE applied to strike out those English proceedings as an abuse of process in light of an earlier ICC arbitral decision between GPE and a related company. The High Court rejected GPE’s strike-out application and permitted the Principal Defendants to pursue their competition-law claims in England.
- Hutchinson v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguaros SA. & Anor [2020] EWHC 178 (QB) This case concerns a claim by Mr Hutchinson for life-changing injuries suffered in 2016 at a Spanish bar/club against the club (Ice Mountain/OBeach) and its Spanish liability insurer (Mapfre). The central jurisdictional issue was whether the English court could hear his claims notwithstanding defendants' arguments that Spain was the appropriate forum. The judge held there was a good arguable case that the court has jurisdiction over the contractual claim against Ice Mountain under the consumer provisions of Recast Brussels 1, stayed the non-contractual claims pending a CJEU reference on Article 13(3), and found a good arguable case that the court can assume jurisdiction over Mapfre under Article 13(2) because the insurer could not rely (as against the claimant) on a territorial clause requiring suits in Spain.
- Hutchinson v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguaros SA. & Anor This is a private injury claim arising from a serious pool accident at the Ocean Beach Club in Ibiza where the claimant sued the venue (Ice Mountain) and its Spanish insurer (Mapfre). The material issue before the English court was whether it had jurisdiction: the court held it has jurisdiction over the contractual claim against Ice Mountain under the consumer provisions of Recast Brussels 1, and it also concluded there is a good arguable case that it has jurisdiction against Mapfre and that a territorial clause relied on by Mapfre cannot be used to defeat a direct claim. The claimant’s non-contractual (tort and statutory) claims were stayed pending a CJEU reference on Article 13(3).
- Munich RE Capital Ltd v Ascot Corporate Name Ltd [2019] EWHC 2768 (Comm) This is a dispute between Munich Re and Ascot about whether a Reinsurance Policy's 12-month "Maintenance Period" indemnifies Munich Re for losses on Project Bigfoot after Munich Re extended the underlying Insurance Policy but failed to extend the Reinsurance Policy. The court held that the Maintenance Period runs from the expiry of the overall Project Period and was intended to cover a completed project after handover; because the project was not completed at the Project Period expiry, the assumed underlying loss was not covered and Ascot was not liable. Munich Re's declarations were refused.
- A v OOO 'Insurance Company Chubb' & Ors This is an urgent application by A for anti-suit relief (mandatory and prohibitory injunctions) to restrain Chubb Russia and related defendants from pursuing proceedings in Russia said to breach an arbitration clause providing for ICC arbitration in London. The court concluded the application was not ready for a fair urgent hearing because of late and inadequate written materials, incomplete evidence (including on Russian law), and complexity as to the non-party defendants, and refused to proceed to grant urgent interim injunctive relief that day.
- Suez Fortune Investments Ltd & Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd & Ors (BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO) [2019] EWHC 2599 (Comm) This commercial insurance judgment concerns recovery under a war risks policy for the constructive total loss of the vessel BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO. The court concluded the loss was caused by the wilful misconduct of the Owner, Mr Iliopoulos, and not by an insured peril, and dismissed the Bank's claim. The court granted the Underwriters declaratory relief on their counterclaim.
- Motor Insurers' Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 This appeal concerned whether EU Directive 2009/103/EC (the Motor Insurance Directive) had direct effect against the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) so as to obligate the MIB to indemnify a claimant injured by an uninsured driver on private land. The Court of Appeal upheld Soole J's decision that the MIB is an emanation of the State and Article 10 of the Directive has direct effect against it, so the MIB was liable to compensate the claimant.
- Barclays Bank Plc v Marsden This is the claimant bank's application to strike out the defendant's Defence and Counterclaim concerning a £608,601.14 redress award said by the defendant to have been wrongfully withheld and whether that award was subject to bankruptcy set-off. The judge treated the question as a pure point of law but refused the defendant's proposed amendment and struck out the counterclaim as both incapable of success and an abuse of process. The court therefore dismissed the defendant's attempt to litigate the set-off point in these proceedings.
- Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 718 This appeal concerned how liability for mesothelioma settlements under employers' liability insurance that spans many years should be met at the reinsurance level—specifically whether a primary insurer that pays a full mesothelioma claim may recover the whole amount from any one annual reinsurance or must claim pro rata across the reinsurances for the years of exposure. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and (agreeing with Males LJ) answered the questions of law in the terms he indicated, rejecting the view that the victim-compensation policy supporting insurer recovery at the insurance level mandates the same approach at the reinsurance level.
- Herbert v H H Law Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 527 The appeal concerned (1) the application of CPR 46.9(3) to a 100% success fee under a conditional fee agreement and (2) whether an ATE insurance premium is a solicitor’s disbursement for the purposes of a solicitor-and-client costs assessment. The court concluded (as recorded in the supplied text) that the ATE premium is not a solicitor’s disbursement to be included in the bill on assessment and allowed the appeal on that point. The supplied text does not permit a clear statement of any definitive outcome on the CPR 46.9(3) success-fee issue.
- R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd This case concerns whether an insurer must cover loss caused by a fire that occurred during repair of a vehicle, and whether that loss "arose out of the use of the vehicle on a road" for the purposes of compulsory third‑party motor insurance and the policy wording. The court found the causal link too remote: the fire was caused by alleged negligent repair activity, not by the vehicle's prior use, and the relevant policy clause required the insured to be in the vehicle. The appeal was allowed and the insurer was entitled to the declaration that it had no cover.
- Glencore Energy UK Ltd & Anor v Freeport Holdings Ltd (The 'Lady M') This appeal concerned whether article IV rule 2(b) of the Hague-Visby Rules can exempt a carrier from liability to a cargo owner for damage caused by fire if that fire was caused deliberately or barratrously by the master or crew, and raised a related question about the mental element for barratry. The judgment sets out the factual background (a fire in the engine room of the Lady M during a voyage, cargo owner Glencore suing the owners) and reproduces the relevant Hague-Visby provisions and pleadings. The supplied text does not include the court's ultimate decision on the appeal.
- Friends Life Ltd v Miley [2019] EWCA Civ 261 This appeal concerned whether Friends Life Ltd could stop and recover payments under a group income protection policy on the basis that Mr Miley had fabricated or exaggerated chronic fatigue symptoms. The trial judge found Mr Miley entitled to benefits and rejected allegations of deliberate fabrication; Henderson LJ granted limited permission to appeal only on narrow non‑dishonesty points. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, leaving the trial judge's findings and award in place.
- Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd This dispute concerned whether a claimant (Ms Cameron) could pursue a judgment against an unidentified driver and obtain a declaration that the vehicle insurer was directly liable to meet any judgment, and whether EU motor-insurance law required recognition of such a right or displaced recourse to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. The court rejected the submission that the EU Directive required a direct right against the insurer or forbade use of the Bureau, and concluded that the claimant could not sue the unidentified driver without complying with service and identification rules. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal’s order was set aside and the District Judge’s order reinstated.
- Astor Management AG v Atalaya Mining Plc & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2407 This appeal concerned whether EMED was obliged to pay Deferred Consideration to Astor under a 2008 Master Agreement following restart of mining at the Rio Tinto Project, specifically whether the requirement for a "Senior Debt Facility" had to be satisfied or displaced. The Court held that the Deferred Consideration accrued as a debt on the date of the Master Agreement and that the clause described as a "cash sweep" obliged EMED to apply available cash to pay the Deferred Consideration early; the appeals were dismissed.
- Airbus S.A.S v Generali Italia S.P.A. & Or [2018] EWHC 2737 (Comm) Airbus applied to the English court for declarations that proceedings brought in Italy by Insurers are caught by the exclusive English-jurisdiction clause in the Warranties Agreement. The court found that Clause 13.2 applies to disputes arising out of the Warranties Agreement, and that the Italian proceedings, insofar as they are brought by the Insurers by way of subrogation to Alitalia’s rights under that agreement, fall within that clause; the court also held that an insurer exercising subrogation is bound by legal obstacles applicable to the assured. The court declined to decide hypothetical independent tort claims not pleaded by the Insurers.
- Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2403 This was an application by Millennium for permission to appeal a TCC judgment that Wheeldon was entitled to indemnity after a fire; Millennium relied on alleged breaches of policy conditions precedent. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the CPR r.52.6(1) test applies and observing that challenges to trial findings of fact and expert assessment in TCC cases will rarely succeed.
- Mamancochet Mining Ltd v Aegis Managing Agency Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2643 (Comm) This marine insurance dispute concerned whether a standard sanctions clause in a cargo policy prevented payment of a theft claim because payment would expose (re)insurers to US or EU sanctions after the US decision of 8 May 2018. The court concluded that payment before 23:59 EST on 4 November 2018 would not expose the defendants to a sanction within the meaning of the clause, and the claimant was therefore entitled to payment. The court also rejected a construction of the clause that would extinguish the insurer's liability when exposure to sanctions arises.
- China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation v Emerald Energy Resources Ltd This dispute concerns Sinosure's claim on a US$66,500,000 promissory note issued by Emerald and Emerald's application that the English court has no jurisdiction or should stay the proceedings because they are covered by an arbitration agreement or should be stayed under the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Note contains an English-law, non‑exclusive jurisdiction clause; Emerald argued the claim fell to arbitration and/or should be stayed. The court refused Emerald's jurisdictional challenge to the Second Claim and refused its applications for a stay.
- Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1371 This case concerns whether clause 11 of Hall Fire's standard terms (an exclusion clause) was incorporated into its contract with Goodlife and, if incorporated, whether it was reasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The trial judge held that clause 11 was incorporated, was neither particularly unusual nor onerous and had been fairly and reasonably brought to Goodlife’s attention, and that it satisfied UCTA reasonableness; the Court of Appeal endorses that approach in the passages supplied. The effect in the supplied text is that Hall Fire may rely on clause 11 to exclude liability for the loss claimed.
- Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 991 This appeal concerns whether MMI could present each mesothelioma-related outwards reinsurance claim to any single reinsurance year of its choice ("spiking"), whether that presentation breached any duty of good faith or implied contractual term, and how recoupment and contribution between reinsurers should be calculated. The arbitral tribunal (Flaux LJ) held that MMI could spike claims and that recoupment and contribution should follow MMI's "independent liability" methodology, and the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal all three questions.
- Engelhart CTP (US) LLC v Lloyd's Syndicate 1221 for the 2014 Year of Account & 6 Ors [2018] EWHC 900 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether a marine cargo insurance policy covered loss where bills of lading and other documents were fraudulent and no cargo of copper ingots ever existed. The court concluded the policy required a "physical" loss of or damage to goods and therefore did not cover the claimant's loss arising from acceptance of fraudulent documents for non-existent cargo. The claimant's declaration was refused.
- Woodford v AIG Europe Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 358 (QB) This is a claim by former directors (Woodford and Hillman) for legal defence costs under a German-law D&O policy issued to Olympus Europa, which AIG denied on grounds including alleged pre-1 August 2015 knowledge and non-cooperation. The court heard extensive evidence and expert reports and, on the material before it, found that the claimants had incurred the defence costs and that those costs were reasonable given the case's complexity, and therefore awarded indemnity for those costs.
- Woodford v AIG Europe Ltd & Anor This is a dispute over defence costs sought by Mr Woodford and Mr Hillman under a German-law D&O insurance policy after a claim by KeyMed for alleged breaches of directors' duties. AIG denied cover, arguing knowledge of breaches before 1 August 2015 and/or failure to provide information, and later revoked cover; after hearing evidence and expert reports the judge found the claimants entitled to an indemnity for the defence costs and that the costs claimed were reasonable.
- Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 268 This appeal concerned the construction of an exclusion in Financial Guarantee Indemnity policies and, if Acasta’s construction were correct, whether Acasta could be permitted to amend its defence to plead breaches of a 28 June 2010 refinancing agreement between Nesbit and Clydesdale. The Court of Appeal dismissed Acasta’s appeal, allowed amendment only to raise the construction point but refused permission to amend so as to plead breaches of the Refinancing Agreement. A prior order had awarded Nesbit judgment for insured irrecoverable costs.
- Rosgosstrakh Ltd v Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama AO & Anor [2017] EWHC 3377 (Comm) This is an application by the insurer to substitute the correct claimant entity name after proceedings had been issued and after limitation had expired. The material issue was whether the court had jurisdiction under CPR 19.5 and whether it was just to permit substitution despite the limitation point and a prior misnaming. The court granted the application, substituting Rosgosstrakh Insurance Company (Public Joint Stock Company) for Rosgosstrakh Limited.
- Bluebon Ltd v Ageas (UK) Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 3301 (Comm) This case concerned the proper construction of an electrical inspection warranty (PGO001) in an insurance policy for the Star and Garter Hotel, which was destroyed by fire during the policy period. The central issue was whether the warranty had been complied with and, if not, whether that meant the policy was void or cover suspended. The judge found there was no evidence of the required inspection within five years, that the warranty required inspection every five years (and, if not inspected within five years, an inspection at or before inception), that it operated as a suspensive warranty/condition suspending cover (alternatively at least for fire losses), and that the insurers were under no liability to the insured.
- Sandra Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd This judgment records case management in mass litigation against GlaxoSmithKline and deals particularly with a Defendant application for security for costs to be paid by the Claimants’ litigation funder, Managed Legal Solutions Ltd (MLS). The court had previously ordered the Claimants to pay the Defendant £30,000 (order dated 28 March 2017) and heard the security-for-costs application in November 2017; the judgment records that it is likely an order for security will be made but does not set out a final quantified security order in the supplied text. A further case management conference was adjourned to 20 February 2018.
- Lewington v The Motor Insurance Bureau [2017] EWHC 2848 (Comm) This case concerns whether a stolen Bell B30D dumper truck that caused injury on a public road fell within the Road Traffic Act's definition of "motor vehicle" such that the Motor Insurers' Bureau was liable under the Untraced Drivers' Agreement. The judge found the arbitrator had erred in law in his test of RTA(c) and, applying a purposive interpretation in line with the Directive to the arbitrator's factual findings, concluded the dumper was a motor vehicle and therefore required to be insured. The MIB accepted that consequence.
- Miley v Friends Life Ltd This is a dispute over whether the claimant was entitled to income protection payments under a group permanent health policy due to chronic fatigue syndrome, and whether the defendant insurer could resist payment and reclaim sums by alleging fabrication or misrepresentation. The judge found the claimant had discharged the burden of demonstrating CFS sufficiently debilitating to entitle him to benefits from September 2013 up to 26 July 2017, awarded those withheld payments with interest, refused a declaration for payments beyond that date, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.
- Osborne v Follett Stock (a firm) & Anor [2017] EWHC 1811 (QB) This is a preliminary-issue judgment in a professional negligence claim by the claimant against her former lawyers for failing to advise her about potential negligence by earlier solicitors (Coodes) in relation to a 1997 will and a related agreement. The material issue was whether the claimant's claim against her lawyers was time‑barred under the Limitation Act and Latent Damage Act. The judge held that the claimant's damage accrued on 1 March 1997 when the agreement was entered into, that the Latent Damage Act did not assist, and resolved the preliminary issue against the claimant, dismissing the claim.
- Osborne v Follett Stock (a firm) & Anor This is a preliminary-issue judgment in a professional-negligence claim by the claimant against her former lawyers for allegedly failing to advise her so that she lost the chance to sue a prior firm (CT) concerning a 1997 will transaction. The material issue was whether the claimant's claim against her lawyers was statute-barred. The judge found the claimant's loss accrued at the time of entering the agreement (1 March 1997) and that the Latent Damage Act did not assist because the claimant knew of the competing claim by February 2005, so the preliminary issue is resolved against the claimant and the claim dismissed.
- Miley v Friends Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 1583 (QB) This case concerns whether the claimant is entitled to income-protection payments for alleged moderate to severe chronic fatigue syndrome and whether the insurer can avoid the policy because the claimant allegedly understated other income on financial review forms. The defendant also applied for the trial judge to recuse himself for apparent bias based on his email and other conduct. The judge considered the recusal application and refused it, concluding the application failed.
- Miley v Friends Life Ltd This judgment concerns a dispute under an income-protection policy where the insurer alleged the claimant was fabricating or exaggerating CFS and also relied on alleged non-disclosure of other income to avoid the policy. The recusal application by the defendant, alleging apparent bias by the judge arising from the judge's email and conduct, was considered and rejected. The judge explained the reasons why the email and related conduct could not be seen by a fair-minded observer as predetermination and confirmed the application fails.
- Dalecroft Properties Ltd v Underwriters Subscribing To Certificate Number... [2017] EWHC 1263 (Comm) This was a dispute after a 2009 fire at mixed commercial/residential premises insured by the defendants, who sought to avoid the policy for alleged misrepresentation, non-disclosure and breaches of warranty. The central issue was whether the insurers were entitled to decline cover on those grounds. The court found the Underwriters were properly entitled to decline cover and dismissed Dalecroft’s claim.
- Cameron v Hussain & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 366 This appeal concerned whether a claimant could amend proceedings to substitute as defendant “the person unknown driving vehicle Y598 SPS” after a hit-and-run where the vehicle was identified but the driver was untraced, and whether the insurer of the vehicle was liable under the Road Traffic Act to satisfy any unsatisfied judgment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal to allow the unnamed-defendant substitution and endorsing the view that the claimant could pursue compensation through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) scheme instead.
- UK Insurance Ltd v R&S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) [2017] EWCA Civ 259 The case concerns whether UK Insurance Ltd (Churchill) was obliged under a motor insurance policy to indemnify Thomas Holden for third‑party property damage caused by a fire that started while he was carrying out welding repairs to his immobilised car on his employer's premises. The material issue is whether the policy (and relevant statutory/Directive requirements) covered loss “arising out of the use” of the vehicle in those circumstances. In the High Court HHJ Waksman QC declared that UKI was not liable to indemnify Mr Holden; permission to appeal was granted (the appellate decision is not contained in the supplied text).
- Lowick Rose LLP v Swynson Ltd and another This case concerns competing claims arising from a refinancing which repaid an earlier loan and the question whether Mr Hunt or Swynson could recover from HMT by way of unjust enrichment, equitable subrogation or related doctrines. The material issue was whether HMT had been unjustly enriched (or otherwise liable) when the refinancing incidentally relieved HMT of liability; the court held the unjust enrichment claim failed because there was no defect in the transaction and, for the reasons given, allowed HMT’s appeal, finding that neither Mr Hunt nor Swynson had a maintainable claim against HMT.
- Astor Management AG & Anor v Atalaya Mining Plc & Ors This dispute concerned the interpretation and effect of deferred payments under a 2008 Master Agreement by which Astor sold its interest in a Spanish mining project to EMED and agreed to accept substantial deferred consideration. The court held that the first instalment of the Deferred Consideration had not become payable, that EMED Group loans did not qualify as a Senior Debt Facility, and that EMED Tartessus (subject to the specified exception) is prohibited from repaying amounts lent by EMED Holdings and must apply any excess cash to pay the Deferred Consideration until it is paid in full. The court also found the obligation to use all reasonable endeavours to obtain a Senior Debt Facility to be enforceable but concluded Astor had not shown a breach.
- Denso Manufacturing UK Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc [2017] EWHC 391 (Comm) This dispute concerns whether Great Lakes, as insurer under an ATE policy originally issued to Mploy and with rights transferred under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930, was liable to indemnify Denso for a Default Costs Certificate of £319,696.59. Great Lakes contended non-payment of the premium and breaches of cooperation/condition-precedent clauses discharged its liability and also relied on set-off and exclusions; the court found against the Claimant and dismissed Denso's claim. The judgment engages with whether statutory transferees take subject to equities such as set-off rights.
- XYZ v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 287 (QB) This is an application for an order that Travelers Insurance Company Ltd pay the costs incurred by 426 claimants who obtained judgment against Transform Medical Group (in administration) in claims arising from defective PIP breast implants. The material issue was whether it was just to order the insurer (Travelers) to pay those uninsured claimants' costs in light of Travelers' conduct during the litigation. The judge ordered Travelers to pay the applicants' costs up to 31 March 2016.
- XYZ v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd This judgment concerns an application that Travelers Insurance Company Ltd be ordered to pay the costs incurred by 426 claimants whose claims against Transform Medical Group (in administration) were uninsured for defective breast implants. The material issue was whether it was just to order Travelers to pay those applicants' costs given Travelers' involvement in and influence over the conduct of the uninsured claims and Transform's failure to disclose its limited insurance position. The judge concluded it was just to make an order against Travelers for the applicants' costs up to 31 March 2016.
- Pemberton Greenish LLP v Henry [2017] EWHC 246 (QB) This is a subrogated claim by an insurer against a consultant solicitor, Jane Henry, alleging losses arising from her handling of a property/mortgage matter and seeking recovery limited by the policy to losses caused by dishonest acts or omissions. The court applied the Lord Hutton test for dishonesty and required cogent evidence for allegations of dishonesty, found breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 but concluded there was insufficient cogent evidence that the claimant’s losses were caused by the defendant’s dishonest acts or omissions, and therefore dismissed the subrogated claim on that basis.
- Pemberton Greenish LLP v Henry This is a subrogated claim by Pemberton Greenish’s insurers against consultant solicitor Jane Henry for losses arising from a property/mortgage transaction; the insurer’s policy allowed subrogation only where loss was caused by dishonest acts or omissions. The judge applied the established test for dishonesty and noted the need for cogent evidence for such allegations, found breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and some worrying conduct by the defendant, but concluded there was not sufficiently cogent evidence that the claimant’s losses were caused by the defendant’s dishonesty. Accordingly the claimant’s subrogated recovery was not established.
- WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 25 This appeal concerned whether entry into a Payment Deed and associated Escrow Agreement and/or payment into an escrow account created, for professional liability insurers, an immediate obligation to indemnify BVGL on the basis that the escrowed sum was a sum the insured had "become legally obligated to pay as Damages". The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge below that the Payment Deed and escrow payment did not, without more, establish or quantify the insured's liability so as to trigger immediate indemnity, and dismissed the reinsurers' appeal.
- Zurich Insurance Plc v Maccaferri Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1302 This appeal concerned whether Zurich could rely on an insurance-policy clause to refuse indemnity to Maccaferri for its contribution to damages for Mr McKenna’s eye injury. The judge had found that, on the facts known to Maccaferri when the incident occurred, it was not at least 50% likely that a claim would eventuate, and so Zurich could not rely on the policy condition; the Court of Appeal agreed.
- Sahin v Havard & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1202 This appeal arises from a road collision involving an unidentified driver (Mr X) of a hire car; the claimant obtained default judgments against the hirer and then sued the named driver on the basis the hirer (Ms Havard) had permitted an uninsured person to drive. The key issues were whether Ms Havard’s liability was a liability statutorily required to be covered and whether the insurer’s policy in fact covered liability arising from Mr X’s use of the vehicle. The judge held both questions in the negative and dismissed the claim; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
- Volcafe Ltd & Ors v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA (t/a CSAV) [2016] EWCA Civ 1103 This appeal concerned condensation damage to containerised coffee and whether the Hague Rules applied to the carrier's obligations in respect of container "dressing and stuffing", and whether the losses were caused by inherent vice or were inevitable. The court held that where the carrier assumes responsibility for lining and stuffing (as on LCL/FCL terms) those operations fall within "loading" and the Hague Rules apply, but allowed the carrier's appeal insofar as the judge had rejected the defences that the damage was caused by the inherent vice of the cargo or was inevitable. The remaining judges agreed with these conclusions.
- Impact Funding Solutions Limited v AIG Europe Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Chartis Insurance (UK) Ltd) This appeal concerns the construction of a solicitors' professional indemnity insurance policy exclusion of "breach by any Insured of the terms of any contract or arrangement for the supply to, or use by, any Insured of goods or services in the course of providing Legal Services", in the context of a disbursements funding master agreement between a solicitor firm (Barrington) and Impact Funding. The material issue is whether that agreement was properly characterised as supplying goods or services to the firm such that the exclusion applied. Lord Toulson (with Lords Mance, Sumption and Hodge agreeing) concluded that the agreement's essential purpose was to provide loans to clients, not a supply of goods or services to the firm, and would uphold the Court of Appeal and dismiss the appeal.
- Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE v Western Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1003 This appeal concerned whether Western Trading was entitled under its fire policy to an indemnity measured by the cost of reinstatement after the Boak Building was destroyed by fire. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's declaration that Western Trading may be entitled to indemnity if it effects a proper reinstatement as defined by the policy, but varied the costs order so that costs are to be assessed on the standard scale rather than on the indemnity basis.
- OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 778 This case concerns the measure of damages for deceit where Glencore supplied bespoke blended crude cargos but misdescribed them as Iranian Heavy or GOSM. The material issue was the appropriate deduction (discount) to apply in assessing market value of the cargos absent the deceit, given uncertainties about composition and refinery risk. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual valuation and dismissed Glencore's appeal, accepting the judge's discount assessment (reduced to $1).
- Versloot Dredging BV and another v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others [2016] UKSC 45 This Supreme Court judgment concerns whether the use of a fraudulent device during the claims process can defeat an insured's otherwise valid insurance claim. The material issue was whether the fraudulent-claims rule (including fraudulent devices) operates to deny recovery and how materiality of lies should be assessed. The Court (by majority) upheld the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal, endorsing that the fraudulent-claims/devices rule can deprive an insured of a claim and that materiality is assessed by reference to the circumstances when the device or lie was deployed.
- Le Guevel-Mouly & Ors v AIG Europe Ltd [2016] EWHC 1794 (QB) This case concerns personal injury claims arising from a 2012 road traffic accident in Scotland where the defendants (an English-registered insurer) sought a stay of English proceedings in favour of Scotland as the more appropriate forum. The primary issue was forum non conveniens: whether Scotland was "clearly more appropriate" than England & Wales. The court refused the defendant's application and declined to stay the English proceedings.
- Le Guevel-Mouly & Ors v AIG Europe Ltd This is a forum conveniens dispute arising from a 2012 road accident in Scotland where the defendant insurer sought a stay of English proceedings in favour of Scotland. The judge found that, on the evidence before the court, Scotland was not "clearly more appropriate" and refused the defendant's application to stay the proceedings. The decision relied on factors including the defendant's English domicile, the absence of compelling evidence that Scottish proceedings would be substantially more convenient or efficient, and the defendant's delay/oversight in raising jurisdiction.
- Campbell v Gordon The case concerns whether the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and related provisions impose a private civil right of action where an employer (or specified officers of a corporate employer) fails to insure employees. The court (majority) held that the statutory duty to insure is a specific obligation intended to protect a definable class (employees) and allowed the appeal, permitting the case to proceed to proof. Dissenting judges disagreed.
- Connect Shipping Inc & Anor v Sveriges Anfgartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) & Ors [2016] EWHC 1580 (Comm) This is a dispute arising from an engine-room fire to the mv "Renos" about whether the owners validly gave notice of abandonment and whether the loss was a constructive total loss (CTL) or a partial loss; the court found the owners' NOA of 1 February 2013 was not too late and was effective. The judge accepted that the Vessel was a CTL, allowed a general contingency of about 10% to repair cost estimates, and ordered the insurers to pay their proportions of the US$12 million insured value, the Swedish Club to pay the US$3 million increased value, and 85% of US$1,440,970 in sue-and-labour costs.
- Rizan & Anor v Hayes & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 481 This is an appeal by two claimants who alleged whiplash and related losses from a 17 September 2008 road collision; the county court had dismissed their claims, ordered the second defendant insurer to recover costs on the indemnity basis and directed an interim payment on account of costs. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the claimants' substantive claims but set aside the county court's finding of fraud and substituted an order that the second defendant's costs, if not agreed, be assessed on the standard basis rather than the indemnity basis.
- Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc [2016] EWHC 1119 (QB) This case concerns whether Cape Distribution Ltd (CDL) is entitled under a 1964 Sale Agreement to indemnity from its parent Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc (CIH) for asbestos-related claims by former employees, and whether an employers' liability insurance policy and a November 1964 endorsement affect CIH's liabilities or give CIH an indemnity from the insurer (Aviva as successor). The judgment records that a set of 16 preliminary issues about contractual construction, the scope and timing of any indemnity, and the effect of the Policy and Endorsement were tried. The supplied excerpt does not contain the court's conclusions on those issues.
- Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc This litigation arises from historic asbestos claims against Cape Distribution Ltd (CDL) and concerns whether Cape Intermediate Holdings plc (CIH), which acquired CDL’s business under a 1 January 1964 Sale Agreement, is contractually liable to indemnify CDL for employee asbestos claims and/or whether such liabilities are covered (or affected) by a 1956–1966 employers’ liability Policy and a November 1964 endorsement. The judgment reports the trial of multiple preliminary issues focused on (inter alia) construction of the Sale Agreement, the effect and temporal scope of the Policy and Endorsement, and whether Aviva (as successor insurer) may recover by subrogation; the text supplied does not record the trial’s final determinations.
- Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat VE Ticaret A.S. ("Yusuf Cepnioglu") This appeal concerned whether a third party claim under Turkish insurance law is the equivalent of the insured's contractual rights against the insurer (such that an arbitration clause in the insurance contract could be enforced) and whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to restrain Turkish proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ordered costs and a payment on account, and refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- AIG Europe Ltd v Oc320301 LLP & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 367 This appeal concerned the construction of an aggregation clause in solicitors' professional indemnity insurance arising from claims by 214 investors against a dissolved firm (formerly ILP) about releases from escrow. The material issue was whether the policy aggregation/MTC provision applied to the investors' claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside parts of the High Court order, and remitted the action to the Commercial Court for re-trial with guidance; it also ordered repayment of an interim costs payment and made costs directions.
- Magellan Spirit ApS v Vitol SA "Magellan Spirit" This is an application by the owner of the vessel Magellan Spirit for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Vitol SA (VSA) from pursuing proceedings in Nigeria, the disputed issue being whether the parties agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English High Court. The judge found that the Owner had delayed and had allowed the Nigerian court to become sufficiently seised of the matter, making English intervention inappropriate. The Owner's application for an anti-suit injunction was refused and the court declared that the English court did not have jurisdiction to try the Owner's claim in this action.
- Frasca-Judd v Golovina [2016] EWHC 497 (QB) This is a landlord/insurer subrogated claim against a tenant for flood damage caused by frozen pipes, based on an express tenancy clause requiring precautions against frost and alternatively negligence. The judge found the claimant's evidence weak and, on the balance of probabilities, accepted the tenant's evidence that she left the heating on when vacating, so the possibility of subsequent heating failure could not be excluded. For those reasons the claim was dismissed.
- Frasca-Judd v Golovina This is a landlord-insurer claim (brought by subrogation) against a tenant for flood damage caused by frozen pipes, relying on a tenancy clause requiring precautions against frost and on negligence. The factual dispute was whether the tenant left the heating on when she vacated the cottage on 27 December 2009; the judge found on the balance of probabilities that she did leave the heating on and that a subsequent heating failure could not be excluded. For the reasons given in the judgment the claim was dismissed.
- Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership) [2016] EWCA Civ 46 This appeal concerned a costs order made after a trial on quantum between the Sugar Hut claimants and their former broker, following a compromise that the broker would pay 65% of recoverable losses. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had erred in treating a 23 May 2014 letter as a free-standing compromise of the business-interruption claim and had been wrong to deprive the Claimants of costs after 13 June 2014; the appeal was allowed and the costs order amended so the Defendant must pay 70% of the Claimants' costs of the assessment of damages on the standard basis.
- Ocean Finance & Mortgages Ltd & Anor v Oval Insurance Broking Ltd [2016] EWHC 160 (Comm) This dispute concerned OFML's claim that its broker Oval failed to advise a "block notification" of PPI sales to the 2008/09 professional indemnity policies, and Oval's subsequent claim against placing broker SWIL for contribution. Oval admitted it had not advised a block notification, settled OFML's claim for £2.55m (damages and costs and an indemnity) and the court found comparative responsibility should be apportioned 70% to Oval and 30% to SWIL, so Oval may recover 30% of the settlement and related costs from SWIL. The court also held the settlement was reasonable on a global basis.
- ARC Capital Partners Ltd v Brit UW Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 141 (Comm) This was a coverage dispute under the Second Excess Layer professional indemnity policy arising from a negligence claim made against ARC Capital's manager in relation to an investment. The court determined that the Claim was either first made within the 2013/14 Policy Period or, if not, was covered under Extension Clause 5j (so the Insurers could not rely on Clause 14 to decline cover). The court also declared the Claim was not excluded by the Policy's Retroactive Date Clause. Costs were to follow the event.
- Sobrany v UAB Transtira [2016] EWCA Civ 28 This appeal concerned whether Mr Sobrany could recover credit-hire charges where insurers had paid sums under policies and whether he was limited to a single-policy limit of £100,000. The Court of Appeal (Christopher Clarke LJ, with Lewison and Laws LJJ agreeing) allowed the appeal, entered judgment for Mr Sobrany for £101,382.22 with interest, and treated the insurer's payments as amounts satisfying the hire charges so there was no double recovery. The court also treated there as being two policies, so the claimant was not limited to £100,000.
- Smith v Stratton & Anor This appeal concerned whether the Motor Insurers’ Bureau was liable to meet a passenger’s personal injury claim after a crash when the insured driver drove off from police. The central issue was whether the claimant’s participation in a joint criminal enterprise and the driver’s act of making off to evade lawful apprehension meant the claim was excluded by the common-law ex turpi causa maxim and by clause 6.1(iii) of the MIB Agreement. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the judge’s findings that the four occupants were engaged in a joint enterprise, that the driver made off to evade police, and that those conclusions justified applying the maxim and clause 6.1(iii).
- AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm) AIG Europe sought a declaration that numerous investor claims against a firm of solicitors should be aggregated as a single claim under the solicitors' insurance policy; the court had to construe the policy's aggregation clause and apply it to allegations arising from the failed Midas developments. The underlying investor claims (assumed true for these proceedings) concerned release of escrowed monies and defective security for Peninsula Village and Al Johara/Marrakech projects. The court refused AIG the declaration it sought.
- Brit UW Ltd v F & B Trenchless Solutions Ltd [2015] EWHC 2237 (Comm) This case concerns an insurance insurer's attempt to avoid a contractors' combined liability policy on the grounds that the insured failed to disclose significant earth settlement and a void at a tunnelling site and made a misrepresentation about carrying out work under active railway lines. The court found that Brit validly avoided the Policy in January 2014 for material non-disclosure and misrepresentation, and dismissed FBTS's counterclaim. It also found Brit had not affirmed the Policy.
- Equity Syndicate Management Ltd v Glaxosmithkline Plc [2015] EWHC 2163 (Comm) This case concerned whether an insurance policy issued to cover GSK's "ECOS" scheme should be rectified to exclude cover for a hired car driven by GSK employee Ms Janet Ball, an event which led to Axa paying substantial third-party damages and seeking a 50% contribution from Equity. The court found the written policy misstated the parties' common intention (which was to insure only ECOS vehicles), granted rectification limiting cover to ECOS vehicles, and dismissed Axa's contribution claim.
- Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated This appeal concerns whether proceedings arising from a fatal motor accident on an excursion booked through the Four Seasons Cairo could be served on the Canadian Four Seasons group and whether the English courts had jurisdiction, in particular whether the contract was made in England or governed by English law and whether relevant "damage" was sustained in England. The court dismissed the appeal on the contract claim. It held that the dependency claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 involved damage sustained in England, but that, except for that dependency claim, the other tort claims (including the claim for loss to Sir Ian’s estate and the claimant’s other personal/tort claims) did not involve damage sustained in England.
- Dunnage v Kathleen Bernadette Randall UK Insurance Ltd This Court of Appeal decision arises from a claim by Terry Dunnage for negligence after Vince Randall, suffering florid paranoid schizophrenia, poured petrol over himself and ignited it, seriously injuring the claimant and killing Vince. The insurer denied cover and the trial judge dismissed the claim; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, declared the first defendant (Vince’s estate) liable in damages to the claimant, and held that Vince’s delusions meant his conduct was not properly characterized as wilful or malicious for the purposes discussed in the judgment. The court also stated that the legal analysis of involuntary conduct should not turn on a distinction between mental and physical causes.
- Davies v Forrett & Ors [2015] EWHC 1761 (QB) This judgment addresses only costs arising from a personal injury action and a related Part 20 / cover dispute. The material issue was whether the insurer Southern Rock’s costs of the Part 20 claim should be paid and, if so, by whom; the judge concluded it was just to order Forrett (a non‑party) to pay those costs, made no order against Partington, and refused to order indemnity costs.
- Davies v Forrett & Ors This judgment concerns only costs arising from personal injury proceedings after a road traffic accident in which Davies was seriously injured. The material issue was whether Southern Rock’s costs of a Part 20 cover dispute should be recoverable and, if so, whether they should be paid by the driver Forrett (a non-party to the Part 20 claim), by Partington, or both; the judge ordered that an exceptional costs order against Forrett as a non‑party was just, declined to order costs against Partington, and refused to award costs on the indemnity basis.
- Mapfre Mutualidad Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros SA & Anorv Keefe [2015] EWCA Civ 598 This appeal concerned whether the claimant could rely on Article 11(3) of the Judgments Regulation to sue a foreign‑domiciled tortfeasor (the hotel) in the same English proceedings as a direct claim against the tortfeasor’s foreign‑domiciled insurer. The court held that the claimant had a direct right of action against the insurer under Spanish law and that Spanish law permitted joinder of the insured, so the English court had jurisdiction to join the hotel.
- Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward [2015] EWHC 4256 (QB) This case arises from a chartered accountant's claim against his insurance broker after the broker failed to secure professional indemnity cover and third parties obtained judgments against the accountant. The material issue was the evidential burden as to whether, but for the broker's negligence, an insurer would have provided cover for the claims. The judge concluded that, although the claimant must establish a link to a policy in principle, the practical burden of proving that an insurer would have repudiated rests on the broker and that, in the round, the burden should be treated as on the defendant.
- Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward This is a negligence claim by an accountant (Channon) against his insurance broker (Ward) after the broker failed to place professional indemnity cover and investors sued the accountant following failed property developments. The judge recorded that the claimant must establish that but for the broker's negligence a policy covering the claim would have existed, and that the broker bears the burden of proving the insurer would have repudiated (so the overall burden is treated as on the broker throughout). The judgment was handed down by HHJ Cotter Q.C.; the text supplied does not disclose a final damages or liability figure or any detailed final order.
- Teal Assurance Co Ltd v W R Berkley Insurance Europe Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 1000 (Comm) This was a trial of preliminary issues about when insured losses are suffered under a programme of professional indemnity insurance and reinsurance. The central question concerned the timing (and thus ordering) of loss for the Ajman claim. The judge held that BVC suffered a loss for indemnity purposes of US$13,460,531 when ASPCL drew down the money paid into the escrow account, and therefore two further preliminary issues did not arise.
- The London Steamship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 333 This case concerned Spanish and French claims against a UK protection-and-indemnity insurer (the Club) arising from the sinking of the Prestige and whether those claims could be enforced in England or were matters for Spanish criminal proceedings. The central issue was whether the claims against the Club were governed by the Club's English-law arbitration agreement (and its "pay to be paid" clause) and thus arbitrable, or were independent Spanish statutory rights requiring a criminal conviction. The Court of Appeal held the obligation was governed by English law, enforceable only by arbitration under the Club rules, and dismissed the appeal.
- McWilliam & Anor v Norton Finance (UK) Ltd (t/a Norton Finance) [2015] EWCA Civ 186 This appeal concerned whether Norton Finance, a credit broker, owed fiduciary duties to consumer clients (the McWilliams) so as to require Norton to account for undisclosed commissions received in connection with a loan and payment protection insurance. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that Norton must account to the Claimants for the additional commissions totalling £4,360.25, with interest at 5% from completion of the loan.
- Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWCA Civ 172 This is an appeal about whether clause 6.1(e)(iii) of the 1999 Uninsured Drivers' Agreement (exempting claims where the claimant knew or ought to have known the vehicle was being used in the course of crime) was incompatible with EU motor-insurance directives, and whether any breach gave rise to State liability in damages. Jay J had found for Mr Delaney on those preliminary issues. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, agreeing with the judge’s analysis and conclusions.
- Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) & Ors [2015] EWHC 218 (QB) This case concerned a claim by the assignee of a dissolved solicitors' firm's liquidator that a rival firm and others unlawfully interfered with after-the-event (ATE) insurance and the hearing of a Group Litigation Order (GLO) application, causing the demise of the firm and large consequential losses. The material issues included whether the defendants' alleged tortious acts caused the firm’s losses and whether claimed heads of loss were proved and recoverable. The judge found many heads of loss unrecoverable or grossly exaggerated, assessed a limited loss-of-opportunity award, and dismissed the claim.
- Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) & Ors This case concerns an assignee claimant suing various defendants in relation to the failure of a Group Litigation Order (GLO) and alleged interference with ATE insurance and other wrongdoing said to have caused the collapse of the solicitors' firm GWM. The material issues included alleged unlawful interference with ATE cover, alleged bias or contact influencing the judge, and claimed consequential losses (both specific heads of loss and loss of a trading opportunity). The judge found many heads of loss irrecoverable or grossly exaggerated, made a limited assessment of loss of opportunity, and dismissed the claimant's claim.
- Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v Barrington Support Services Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 31 This appeal concerned whether solicitors' professional indemnity insurers (AIG) were obliged to indemnify Barrington for sums it was ordered to repay to Impact, a company that advanced loans to Barrington's clients to meet disbursements. The material issue was whether an exclusion for "trading or personal debt" or "breach of contract ... for the supply to, or use by, any insured of goods or services" (clause 6.6(b) of the Minimum Terms) excluded AIG's liability. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered judgment against AIG for the sum for which Barrington was found liable.
- Southern Rock Insurance Company Ltd v Brightside Group Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 757 (Comm) This was an application to transfer three related Chancery Division actions from Bristol to the Commercial Court in London, principally driven by a money claim arising from alleged breaches of underwriting processes in motor insurance. The court treated the central question as whether the Commercial Court would be "significantly more suitable" than the Chancery Division and concluded the subject-matter did not require specialist Commercial Court expertise. The application to transfer was dismissed.
- Western Trading Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc [2015] EWHC 103 (QB) This is a fire-insurance claim after a 24 July 2012 fire destroyed buildings in Central Walsall including the Boak Building; the insurer resisted liability on grounds the claimant lacked an insurable interest and had misrepresented/non‑disclosed material facts, and also challenged entitlement to a reinstatement declaration. The court found for the claimant: it will receive a Declaration (subject to a condition concerning unpaid rates or equivalent) and damages for loss of rent, the latter reduced to 50% of the sum claimed.
- Western Trading Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc This is a fire insurance claim arising from a 24 July 2012 fire that destroyed buildings in Central Walsall. The defendant resisted liability principally on grounds that the claimant lacked an insurable interest and had misrepresented facts, and also challenged entitlement to a declaration for reinstatement costs. The court found for the claimant: it will receive a Declaration (subject to a condition about unpaid rates or an equivalent requirement) and damages for loss of rent equal to half the sum claimed.
- Mandalia & Anor v Beaufort Dedicated No2 Ltd [2014] EWHC 4039 (QB) This dispute concerns an insurance claim by the owners of mixed shop and residential premises after tenants stripped out fixtures and caused damage; the central question was what losses the commercial combined policy would cover. The judge found most of the Claimants' losses arose from the tenants' breaches and were not covered, but awarded the Claimants £15,750, including three months' lost rent of £7,500.
- Mandalia & Anor v Beaufort Dedicated No2 Ltd This is a dispute about the scope of cover under a commercial combined insurance policy following an incident on 5 April 2009 when tenants stripped out and damaged shop premises. The central issue was which losses were recoverable under the policy (including whether the loss was “malicious” damage and whether loss of rent was covered). The judge found most losses resulted from the tenants' breaches and were not covered, allowed three months' loss of rent at £7,500, and entered judgment for the claimants in the sum of £15,750 (with interest to be addressed later).
- Rathbone Brothers Plc & Anor v Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1464 These appeals concern construction of an excess-layer professional indemnity policy issued to Rathbone and whether Paul Egerton-Vernon (PEV) was covered, whether the excess clause applied, and whether the excess insurers could be subrogated to PEV’s contractual indemnity from Rathbone. At first instance Burton J held that PEV could recover under the policy, the excess insurers could not rely on the excess clause, but that insurers would be subrogated to PEV’s right to sue on the Rathbone indemnity once they had paid. The Court of Appeal considered those issues on appeal; the supplied excerpts record disagreement about subrogation and the implication of a term in the policy.
- Dowling v Griffin [2014] EWCA Civ 1545 This is an appeal by the Dowlings against a judge's rejection of their negligence claim against their former solicitors, Bennett Griffin, arising from handling of a counter-claim against an architect's company (APAL). The material issue was whether Bennett Griffin breached their duties in ways that caused the Dowlings' loss (in particular by not ensuring APAL's insurance position was secured or by not obtaining evidence from APAL or its insurers). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the judge's finding that the necessary factual foundation, breach and causation had not been established.
- Lim v Walia [2014] EWCA Civ 1076 This case concerns whether, under a joint-life insurance policy with a proviso to "bring forward" payment on proof of terminal illness, the deceased was beneficially entitled immediately before death to a severable joint tenancy interest in the right to a terminal-illness payment. The trial judge held she was, and ordered half the death benefit paid into court; the Court of Appeal concluded that because no terminal-illness claim had been made before death the deceased's severable interest had no value immediately prior to death and the preliminary order was wrong, and the appeal was allowed.
- Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Thumber This judgment records committal proceedings arising from an alleged fraudulent road traffic personal-injury and vehicle-damage claim by Mr Balraj Singh Thumber, pursued by Liverpool Victoria as insurer of the other driver. The court recounts procedural history including discontinued proceedings, disputed service, and medical evidence relied on by the defendant, and finds the claim to be bogus. The judge ordered a committal sentence of 12 months' imprisonment (with directions about serving half and the possibility of discharge if sectioned under the Mental Health Act).
- Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB) This case concerns a passenger injured in a road accident whose claim for damages was affected by an exclusion (clause 6(1)(e)(iii)) in the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 after the driver’s insurer avoided the policy for non-disclosure. The judge found the United Kingdom to be in breach of its Community law obligations under the relevant Directive and entered judgment for the claimant on liability, with damages to be assessed.
- Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport This case concerns a passenger injured in a road traffic accident when the insured driver, later found to have had cannabis in the vehicle, had his insurer avoid the policy for non-disclosure. The material issue addressed was whether clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 was compatible with Article 1(4) of Directive 84/5 and whether the Secretary of State breached Community law by agreeing that exclusion. The judge found the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations and entered judgment for the claimant on liability, with damages to be assessed.
- Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel S.A.U. (formerly Travelplan S.A.U) of Spain [2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether owners who sold a vessel after charterers' anticipatory repudiation must give the charterers credit for the difference between the sale price at the date of sale and the vessel's value at the contractual redelivery date. The arbitrator had allowed such a credit to the charterers; on appeal the High Court allowed the appeal.
- Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2014] EWCA Civ 682 This judgment arises from looting and arson at a Sony warehouse in Enfield during the August 2011 riots and concerns whether the attackers were "persons riotously and tumultuously assembled" such that the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) would be liable to compensate victims (or their insurers). The High Court judge (Flaux J) found that the gang were so assembled and held MOPC liable, and MOPC appealed that finding (with insurers cross‑appealing on extent of liability). The supplied text does not include the Court of Appeal's decision on the appeal.
- Milton Furniture Ltd v Brit Insurance Ltd [2014] EWHC 965 (QB) This case concerns a fire in April 2005 that destroyed most of Milton Furniture Ltd's stock and a disputed claim under a Commercial Combined Insurance policy. The insurer repudiated the claim chiefly on the ground that the insured breached alarm-related conditions precedent (PW1/PW3) by failing to maintain paid monitoring. The court found for the Defendant because of the alarm monitoring breach, although the claimant succeeded on the other liability issues.
- Milton Furniture Ltd v Brit Insurance Ltd The case concerns a catastrophic 2005 fire destroying Milton Furniture Ltd's stock and a disputed claim under a commercial combined insurance policy. The defendant insurer repudiated the claim principally for alleged breaches of protection warranties (alarm/monitoring conditions). The judge found for the defendant because the claimant failed on the alarm monitoring condition precedent, although the claimant succeeded on other liability issues.
- Saville v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 337 This appeal concerned the sale of a five‑year payment protection insurance (PPI) added to a loan and whether breaches of the Insurance Conduct of Business (ICOB) rules by the broker, Central Capital, caused loss to the borrowers. The Court of Appeal concluded that Central failed to elicit the Savilles’ genuine demands about policy term and that, on the evidence, the ICOB breaches were causative: the Savilles would not have bought the PPI as sold if the rules had been complied with. The appeal was allowed.
- Ted Baker Plc & Anor v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 134 This case concerns an application by insurers for permission to appeal against Eder J's preliminary findings on the construction of insurance policies and on alleged misrepresentation/non-disclosure in relation to thefts from Ted Baker's warehouse. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal and declined to admit fresh broker documents or to extend time for filing the appeal, holding that the newly disclosed material was either irrelevant to the judge's conclusions or could not justify delay. The judge's original rulings that the policies (as construed) covered clandestine employee theft and that there was no estoppel-by-convention or basis for rectification were left undisturbed.
- San Evans Maritime Inc & Ors v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2014] EWHC 163 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether Aigaion was obliged by a short "Follow Clause" in its hull policy to follow a settlement reached by Catlin and Brit under a lead Lloyd's policy, and whether a clause in the Lloyd's settlement agreement (clause 7) meant the settlement did not bind Aigaion. The court held that the Follow Clause obliged Aigaion to follow any settlement by Catlin and Brit (excluding ex gratia payments) and that the Follow Clause was triggered by the settlement agreement. The court also held that clause 7 of the settlement agreement did not entitle Aigaion to avoid the effect of the Follow Clause.
- Astrazeneca Insurance Company Ltd v XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1660 This dispute arises from reinsurance of AstraZeneca's policy covering Seroquel litigation and concerns whether the primary insurer (AZICO) can recover from its reinsurers amounts paid in settlements and Defense Costs. The key issues identified are (1) whether the insured had to establish actual legal liability to recover, or whether settlement with the insurer's consent sufficed, and (2) whether reinsurers must indemnify Defense Costs where only one claim reached judgment and liability was not established. The supplied text does not disclose the court's ultimate decision on those preliminary issues.
- Coles & Ors v Hetherton & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1704 This appeal concerned whether an insurer (RSAI), subrogated to its insureds, could recover in tort the full invoiced cost of repairs performed under RSAI’s repair scheme, and whether the cost of a courtesy car was recoverable. The court answered the three preliminary issues in favour of the claimants: the proper measure of loss for a repaired (not written-off) vehicle is the reasonable cost of repair; reasonableness is judged by reference to what a person in the claimant’s position could obtain on the open market; and an insurer who has indemnified the insured by paying no more than that reasonable repair cost can recover that amount. The court also held that the modest courtesy-car charge (£11/day) was recoverable as a contractual benefit and dismissed the appeal against the strike-out/summary-judgment orders.
- Rathbone Brothers Plc & Anor v Novae Corporate Underwriting & Ors [2013] EWHC 3457 (Comm) This case concerns coverage under professional indemnity insurance for PEV, a long‑serving trustee and former employee/consultant of RTCJ, who faces Jersey proceedings alleging breaches of trust. The material issues included whether PEV was insured under the excess policy for the relevant period and whether the insurers could exercise subrogation or otherwise seek recovery from Rathbone or RTCJ given Rathbone's contractual indemnity to PEV. The court held that PEV was an insured person for the period 31 March 2000 to 15 October 2008 and that the insurers could exercise rights of subrogation against Rathbone (but not against RTCJ); it also held that payment under the policy would not discharge Rathbone's indemnity and that the insurance was not the primary source of liability under the Consultancy Agreement.
- Arts & Antiques Ltd v Richards & Ors The claimant jeweller, Arts & Antiques Ltd, sued its insurers Zurich, insurance broker Towergate and broker Mr Richards after a 31 May 2007 robbery and an arbitration in which Zurich succeeded. The High Court struck out all claims against Zurich and Mr Richards, struck out Towergate-related claims except those based on the specific proposition in paragraph 23.1 of A&A’s skeleton argument, ordered A&A to replead its Particulars of Claim, and indicated Towergate was in principle entitled to security for costs.
- British- American Insurance (Kenya) Ltd v Matelec Sal & Anor [2013] EWHC 3278 (Comm) This case arises from two arbitration proceedings between British‑American Insurance (Kenya) Ltd (BAIC) and contractors Matelec SAL and Thika Power concerning a single insurance/reinsurance policy for project cargo and delay in start‑up cover for a Kenyan power‑plant project, and related disputes about appointment of arbitrators and an injunction. The judgment addresses multiple issues including the construction of the (amended and unamended) policy, a detailed factual history, and separate sub‑issues described as construction, rectification and estoppel. The supplied text does not include the court’s final decision on those issues.
- Equitas Ltd & Anor v Walsham Brothers & Company Ltd [2013] EWHC 3264 (Comm) This commercial dispute concerns whether Lloyd's broker Walsham failed to remit to Lloyd's syndicates (and their successor Equitas) funds received from reinsurers and retrocessionaires, and whether Equitas can recover principal and lost investment income (total claimed about £14.9m). The court determined issues of principle at trial and (on the material supplied) established broadly the methodology for assessing Equitas's damages and found that Equitas had succeeded in defeating Walsham’s set‑off defence and its claim to deduct reinstatement brokerage. The judgment text available is incomplete and does not record all detailed rulings or remedies.
- Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd & Anor v The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2013] EWHC 2734 (Comm) This case concerns claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 arising from the looting and destruction by fire of a Sony distribution warehouse during the August 2011 riots. The court decided (on the preliminary issues) that the claimed losses did arise out of injury to and destruction of the warehouse and property within it under section 2(1) of the Act. The court also held that consequential losses (such as loss of profits and loss of rent) are not in principle recoverable under the 1886 Act as a free-standing head of claim.
- Teal Assurance Company Limited v W R Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited and another [2013] UKSC 57 This appeal concerned whether Teal, a captive excess insurer, could select which of BV’s notified third‑party claims to meet from lower layers so that only non‑US/Canadian claims reached the top "top and drop" layer reinsured by the respondents. The Supreme Court (per Lord Mance) rejected that contention, holding that claims fall to be allocated to successive layers as and when BV’s third‑party liability and expenses are ascertained (by agreement, judgment or award), with excess policies dropping down in turn. The appeal was dismissed.
- Charles Stanley & Co Ltd v Adams [2013] EWHC 2137 (QB) This was a claim by Charles Stanley to recover £100,000 from a self‑employed broker, Mr Adams, under their contract’s internal loss‑allocation procedure after the company paid a family settlement and recovered part from insurers. The material issue was whether the contractual procedure, under which company officers and directors determined and appealed a broker’s liability, was unenforceable as ousting the court or contrary to public policy. The judge held the procedure did not offend public policy, declined to oust the court’s jurisdiction, and gave judgment for the claimant for £100,000 less withheld commission.
- Charles Stanley & Co Ltd v Adams This dispute concerned whether Charles Stanley could enforce a contractual internal determination procedure to recover £100,000 from a self‑employed broker, Mr Adams, for losses relating to a client portfolio. The material issue was whether the procedure, under which company committees decided liability, was void as ousting the court or contrary to public policy. The judge held the contractual powers given to the Determination and Appeals Committees did not offend public policy, and gave judgment for the claimant for £100,000 less agreed commission.
- Olympic Airlines SA Pension & Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA This appeal concerned whether Olympic Airlines had an "establishment" in England under the Insolvency Regulation on 20 July 2010 so as to permit secondary winding-up proceedings in England while main proceedings were under way in Greece. The Court of Appeal held that by that date the London operations amounted only to a desultory liquidation with a skeleton, ad hoc staff and no external economic activity, and therefore there was no establishment and no jurisdiction to wind up the company in England.
- Beazley Underwriting Ltd & Ors v Al Ahleia Insurance Company [2013] EWHC 677 (Comm) This is a reinsurance dispute arising from the defective Tank 84 loss under an underlying KOC/HHI contract, the claim under which was notified to the defendants' reinsurers. The material issue at this hearing was whether the defendants breached the Claims Control Clause (CCC) of the Reinsurance Contract by purportedly settling, compromising or admitting liability without reinsurers' consent. The judge held that the correspondence and proposed discharge receipts did not amount to a relevant settlement, compromise or admission of liability (being at most offers to vary the insurance or to pay money) and consequently found no breach of the CCC; the defendants therefore are not barred from pursuing their reinsurance claim and further issues remain for later trial.
- Ace European Group Ltd & Ors v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 224 This dispute between two sets of insurers concerned whether fatigue cracking to economiser tubing occurred in transit (covered by a marine cargo policy) or after arrival on site (covered by an EAR policy). The trial judge found for the Claimant EAR insurers, concluding wind excitation could be ruled out and that transport vibration was the likely cause; the judgment below was defended on that basis. The Court of Appeal criticised the appellants' late disclosure and reliance on photographs, saying they should not have been admitted without proper provenance.
- Chandra & Anor v Brooke North & Anor (Rev 3) [2013] EWHC 417 (QB) This case concerns two related actions arising from a hotel redevelopment and contested without-notice amendment applications to the particulars of claim, opposed on grounds that the proposed amendments raised fresh, time-barred causes of action. The Deputy Master had granted permission to amend on 15 November 2011 and the defendants sought to set aside those orders; HHJ Thornton concluded the Master’s orders were valid, dismissed the defendants’ applications, directed the amendment orders be drawn up and sealed, declared the amended claims were brought within three years for the purposes of section 14, and ordered transfer of the actions to the Technology and Construction Court.
- Chandra & Anor v Brooke North & Anor (Rev 3) This judgment concerns applications to set aside without-notice orders permitting the claimants to amend particulars of claim in two related actions arising from a hotel redevelopment. The primary material issue was whether the Masters' November 2011 amendment orders were valid and whether the proposed amendments raised time-barred fresh causes of action. The judge upheld the Master's orders, dismissed the defendants' applications to set aside, directed the amendments be formalised and declared the amended claims were brought within the Limitation Act period; the actions were ordered transferred to the Technology and Construction Court.
- Astrazeneca Insurance Company Ltd v XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 349 (Comm) This case concerns the construction of a liability insurance Policy (a Bermuda Form variant governed by English law) and whether "Defense Costs" are recoverable as a free‑standing indemnity under the Policy. The court decided that Defence (Defense) Costs are not recoverable as a separate, free‑standing cover; indemnity (including Defence Costs) is available only where the insured demonstrates actual legal liability. Where the insured has entered a settlement, it must prove on the balance of probabilities that it would have been liable for the claim.
- In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited and another v Financial Services Authority [2013] UKSC 7 This appeal concerned whether companies selling extended-warranty contracts that provide repair or replacement (benefits in kind) were carrying on regulated insurance business requiring authorisation under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Regulated Activities Order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the view that such contracts can fall within the class for miscellaneous financial loss insurance and that the First Non-life Directive does not preclude the UK from regulating wider categories of non-life business.
- Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Ltd v Heraldglen Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 154 (Comm) This appeal concerned whether losses flowing from ten inward reinsurance contracts arising out of the 9/11 attacks were caused by one occurrence or by separate occurrences for the purposes of applying aggregation under four outward excess-of-loss retrocessions. The Tribunal had applied the "unities" test and concluded the insured losses arose out of two separate occurrences/events (two successful hijackings). The High Court rejected the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the Tribunal's conclusion.
- Valiant Insurance Company v Sealion Shipping Ltd & Toisa Horizon Inc This appeal concerned whether the loss of hire claim under a one-year marine LOH policy arose from one or multiple "occurrences" for aggregation and excess purposes, following a port azimuth motor (PAM) breakdown and a subsequent starboard hydraulic failure. The Court of Appeal upheld Blair J's decision that the events were causally linked and owners were entitled to the full indemnity of US$2,100,000. The appeal was dismissed.
- Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors This dispute concerned Alliance Bank's claim that its senior officers and related companies conspired to defraud it of about US$1.1bn and sought permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction and a worldwide freezing order. The central issue on appeal was whether England was the appropriate forum to try the claims and whether the earlier orders permitting service out and maintaining the WFO should be set aside. The Court of Appeal concluded that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum and dismissed the appeal, resulting in the WFO and permission to serve out being set aside (subject to any argument about continuation pending further appeal).
- Bunge SA v Kyla Shipping Company Ltd [2012] EWHC 3522 (Comm) This appeal concerned whether a time charterparty was frustrated after the charterers' vessel was damaged in port and required dry-docking. The court held that clause 41, by warranting hull insurance up to US$16 million and allocating the cost of such cover to the owners, meant the owners had assumed the risk and responsibility to repair and therefore the charterparty was not frustrated; the appeal was allowed.
- Nemeti & Ors v Sabre Insurance Company Ltd [2012] EWHC 3355 (QB) This appeal concerned whether the court had power to permit amendment substituting the deceased driver’s estate as defendant outside the relevant limitation period, after the original claim against the insurer was conceded to be unsustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that Master Eastman had erred and did not have the power to permit the substitution. The appeal was therefore allowed and the substitution was not permitted.
- Nemeti & Ors v Sabre Insurance Company Ltd This is an appeal against an order permitting the claimants to amend their particulars to substitute the estate of Ioan Bura for Sabre Insurance after a road traffic accident in Romania. The material issue was whether the court had power to permit substitution of a party outside the relevant limitation period where the original claim as pleaded relied on statutory insurer liability that did not apply. The court concluded Master Eastman had no power to allow the substitution and allowed the appeal.
- Breffka & Hehnke GmbH & Co KG & Ors v Navire Shipping Co Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 3124 (Comm) This commercial claim concerned damaged steel pipes carried under 13 bills of lading and turned on the nature of the shipment representation, reliance and resulting damage, and whether the first claimant (B&H) could sue in its own name on behalf of insurers under German law. The court found that, as a matter of German substantive law, B&H was entitled to bring proceedings in its own name and entered judgment for B&H in the principal sum of US$458,655.69.
- FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd v John Holt & Company (Liverpool) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2477 (Comm) This commercial dispute concerned FG Wilson's claim for about US$12m for generators, parts and related charges against Holt Liverpool and whether FG Wilson's standard "no set-off" clause met the statutory reasonableness test. The court answered the preliminary issue affirmatively that the no set-off clause satisfied the reasonableness requirement and granted FG Wilson summary judgment, but ordered the sums to be recalculated on the basis that the agreed payment terms were the 25th day of the fifth month after invoice.
- Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Fitzgerald & Wilkinson & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1166 This Court of Appeal judgment involves the interaction between UK motor-insurance statute provisions and the EU Motor Insurance Directive, centring on questions about statutory or contractual exclusions to third‑party cover (e.g. unauthorised or unlicensed drivers, vehicle condition, and passenger knowledge of intoxication). The materials show the case proceeded to consider EU law interpretation (including a reference to the CJEU) and national implementing provisions, but the operative reasoning and the court's ultimate decision are not present in the supplied text and thus cannot be stated here.
- Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 980 This is an appeal concerning Faraday (insurers) seeking English declarations about the governing law and scope of an excess liability policy issued to Howden for asbestos-related claims and whether those English proceedings should be set aside in favour of Pennsylvania litigation. The material issue was whether the Commercial Judge (Beatson J) was right to refuse to set aside service and to find the English proceedings served a useful purpose and that England was the convenient forum. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld Beatson J's conclusion.
- Latvian Shipping Company v The Russian People's Insurance Company (Rosno) Open Ended Joint Stock Company [2012] EWHC 1412 (Comm) This dispute arose from damage to the propeller of the vessel Ojars Vacietis after a grounding at Wilmington, North Carolina, and whether that propeller damage occurred in the grounding (insured) or later in ice (uninsured). The arbitrators found it was impossible on the evidence to quantify what propeller damage, if any, was caused by the grounding and dismissed LSC’s claim; the High Court dismissed LSC’s applications challenging the award and confirmed the arbitral award.
- Ted Baker Plc & Anor v AXA Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 1406 (Comm) This case is an insurance coverage dispute concerning Ted Baker's claims for stock loss and consequential business interruption arising from employee theft at its warehouse for the years 2004–2008. The principal issue at trial was whether the AXA policy (and related co-insurers' positions) covered non-forcible, non-violent theft by an employee and consequential business interruption, and whether defendants could avoid cover by rectification, non-disclosure or estoppel. The judge answered Issue 1 (coverage for direct losses from non-F&V employee theft) "Yes" and indicated various other issue-results (including No on certain non-disclosure/misrepresentation pleas and Yes on some BI-related points), and directed the parties to agree a draft order.
- Elafonissos Fishing and Shipping Company v Aigaion Insurance Company SA [2012] EWHC 892 (Comm) This is an insurers' application for permission to re-amend their Defence and Counterclaim and to adduce a witness statement described as an expert report. The court refused the proposed re-amendment that the vessel was not laid up in a seaworthy condition (disallowing the seaworthiness-based plea) but permitted a limited re-amendment to paragraph 12, and allowed parts of Mr Kardiakopoulos’s statement to be adduced (summary of other proceedings and evidence about port lay-up requirements) while excluding evidence on hot/cold lay-up. Insurers were ordered to pay the costs of the application and of the deleted allegations.
- Boreham v Burton [2012] EWHC 930 (QB) This was an approval hearing for a settlement on behalf of a protected claimant, Sam Boreham, including a periodical payment order. The judge considered whether continuity of periodical payments was reasonably secure, having regard to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme rules and transitional provisions, and concluded the payments were secure and therefore formally approved the settlement and granted an interim payment on account of costs of £75,000.
- Boreham v Burton The judgment concerns approval of settlement terms for protected claimant Sam Boreham, including a periodical payment order and the security of its continuity. The judge considered whether the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and relevant FSA/Comp rules covered the defendant's insurer despite the liability arising in 1998, was satisfied that continuity of payments is reasonably secure, formally approved the settlement, and ordered an interim payment on account of costs of £75,000.
- Travelers Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Advani This dispute concerns Travelers seeking repayment of costs (£501,398.71) it paid to defend Gauri Advani in an earlier action and Denton Wilde Sapte seeking £87,075.29 as losses from Advani's conduct. The court found a coverage dispute resolved in Travelers' favour because Advani's conduct was dishonest and outside the course of her employment, entitling Travelers to reimbursement and DWS to its claimed sum. Advani had not given evidence at the first trial and a mid-judgment application to adduce further evidence was refused.
- Martin v JRC Commercial Mortgages Plc This appeal concerned whether a letter dated 11 May 2007 from JRC Commercial Mortgages to a broker created a binding promise or warranty (or gave rise to a duty of care) to the appellant about obtaining a £100,000 loan, and whether the appellant could show causation for his alleged losses. The Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment for the respondent, concluding the letter was no more than a statement of opinion and that the respondent's obligations were defined by the subsequent contract, making the appellant's claim without real prospect of success. The appeal was dismissed.
- Sealion Shipping Ltd & Anor v Valiant Insurance Company [2012] EWHC 50 (Comm) This is a claim under a marine loss of hire policy arising from a propulsion motor breakdown on m.v. TOISA PISCES in February 2009. The defendant insurer contended the policy was avoidable for non‑disclosure and raised defences including failure to exercise due diligence and that separate breakdowns triggered the excess period multiple times. The court found for the claimants, rejecting the insurer's argument that downtime should be excluded on the basis that the drydocking period would have been lost anyway, and held the claimants were entitled to succeed.
- Delaney v Pickett & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 This personal injury appeal arises from a high-speed collision in which Mr Delaney was severely injured as a front-seat passenger in a car driven negligently by Mr Pickett; the trial judge dismissed Delaney’s claims against both Pickett and the insurers, finding the journey was for collection/transportation of illegal drugs and that coverage was excluded under clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against Mr Pickett but dismissed the appeal against the insurers, upholding that the Agreement’s exclusion applied because the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of a crime (transporting cannabis).
- Liberty Insurance PTE Ltd & Anor v Argo Systems FZE This judgment decides costs following the Court of Appeal's allowance of Liberty's appeal on paragraph 1(ii) of HHJ Mackie QC's order. The court awarded Liberty the costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £23,860, ordered Argo to repay the £27,500 paid on account (with interest to be agreed) and to pay a further £18,000 on account of Liberty's costs of the preliminary issues trial, with those trial costs to be subject to detailed assessment. The court rejected Argo's submission that decisions on appeal costs should await Argo's proposed amendment to pursue a return-of-premium claim and remitted other matters to the Mercantile Court.
- Liberty Insurance PTE Ltd & Anor v Argo Systems FZE [2011] EWCA Civ 1572 This case concerns a total-loss claim under a voyage marine insurance policy and whether the insurer (Liberty) had waived or been estopped from relying on a breach of a “Hold Harmless Warranty.” The Court of Appeal held that the judge at first instance was wrong to find an unequivocal representation by the insurer that it would not rely on the warranty, and therefore Liberty was able to plead and rely on Argo’s breach. The appeal on that preliminary issue was allowed.
- Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1570 This dispute concerned whether a "top and drop" insurer (Teal) and its reinsurers were liable only after the underlying tower of US$60m cover had been exhausted by settlement or adjudication, or whether they became liable at the same time as the underlying insurers. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that the top and drop cover does not respond until the underlying insurers have paid, admitted liability or been held liable, and dismissed the appeal.
- Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2011] EWHC 2837 (Comm) This case concerns Faraday's service out of the jurisdiction on Howden North America in England in respect of three excess-layer GSIIL policies and whether that service should be set aside. The material issues were (i) whether the English court should allow proceedings in respect of each policy given HNA's statements about coverage and the utility of the English proceedings, and (ii) whether Pennsylvania is the appropriate forum. The judge concluded the service out should be set aside as to the second and third policies if HNA's concession applied to all US asbestos personal-injury coverage under those policies, but should not be set aside as to the first policy because Faraday retained a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling on the proper law of that policy.
- EUI Ltd v Bristol Alliance Ltd Partnership [2012] EWCA Civ 1267 This dispute concerned whether a motor insurer had to indemnify the owner of commercial premises for damage caused by a deliberate act of the insured driver, where the property owner’s loss was insured and pursued by subrogation. The Court addressed the interaction of the Road Traffic Act, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme and relevant EU material cited in the judgment. The court concluded that the claimant was entitled to recover from the motor insurers and ordered the appeal allowed.
- Pope v Energem Mining (IOM) Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1043 This case arises from Mrs Pope’s claim as personal representative of her son, Jason Pope, who disappeared after a rebel attack; she sued his employer Energem for payment under an employment clause requiring life insurance. The material issue involved competing payments from a Norwich Union policy and Energem’s liability under the contract, and the Court of Appeal amended the trial judge’s order to deduct the Norwich Union payment, leaving Mrs Pope a net award of £121,233.83. Other wider and procedural applications by Mrs Pope were refused.
- New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anor v Grant & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 971 This appeal concerned whether the liquidator of New Cap could enforce in England a New South Wales insolvency order requiring Lloyd's syndicate members to repay commutation payments. The Court of Appeal dismissed the syndicate's appeal and upheld the judge's order assisting the Australian liquidator, concluding that the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (as applied by the 1994 Order) does apply to money judgments made in insolvency proceedings by a recognised court and that registration under that Act would be available. The court also stated it was unnecessary to decide whether the English common law power to assist would be exercisable where the statutory power exists.
- Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Jan De Nul NV & Anor This case concerns whether advance payment guarantees (APGs) given by Meritz in respect of shipbuilding contracts were discharged when the original Korean builder's contracts were transferred to successor companies without Meritz's annulment of the merger. The material issue was whether the contractual transfers and resulting change of builder extinguished Meritz's obligations under the APGs. The Court of Appeal (Longmore LJ, agreeing with Beatson J) dismissed the appeal, effectively upholding the earlier conclusion that Meritz remained liable under the APGs.
- Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams & Anor [2011] EWHC 1657 (QB) This dispute concerned which insurer should pay for damage to the House of Fraser store when a car driven by the first defendant collided with it, and whether the motor insurers (second defendant) remained liable if the driver acted deliberately and the policy contained an exclusion. The Court held the claimant was entitled to recover from the motor insurers on the preliminary issue. The judge concluded that, as a matter of interpretation of Part VI of the RTA and the policy certificate, the policy met the minimum requirements such that the motor insurers were liable.
- Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams & Anor This case concerns which insurer must pay for damage to a store caused when the defendant driver’s car struck the premises on 12 December 2008. The preliminary issue was whether the property insurer (acting by subrogation) could recover from the driver’s motor insurers even if the driver’s act was deliberate and the motor policy excluded deliberate acts. The judge answered that question in the affirmative, concluding that Part VI of the RTA must be read to require insurance meeting the minimum requirements of the relevant EU Directives and that the policy in question met those minimum requirements for present purposes.
- Beazley Underwriting Ltd & Ors v The Travelers Companies Incorp. [2011] EWHC 1520 (Comm) This is Travelers' claim for US$20 million under two professional indemnity insurance policies against Beazley and Liberty Mutual, covering liabilities arising under a 1997 Deed of Indemnity relating to the sale of the Minet group. The material issue was whether the insurers were liable to indemnify Travelers for claims made in the 16 May 2003–15 May 2004 period under the policies and the relevant Deed. The judgment concludes that Travelers' claim fails and the insurers are entitled to declarations that they are not liable to indemnify Travelers under the contracts of insurance.
- Arash Shipping Enterprises Company Ltd v Groupama Transport [2011] EWCA Civ 620 This was an insurance dispute about whether underwriters validly served notice of cancellation under an Iran Sanctions Clause in a marine policy, in light of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 and its Article 26. The Court of Appeal heard an expedited appeal, ordered the respondent to cease to be a representative party, and dismissed the appeal, leaving Burton J's conclusion that the cancellation was valid in place. The court expressed caution about definitively construing Article 26 on the expedited material before it.
- Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest Council [2011] EWCA Civ 194 This appeal concerned whether a claimant (whose loss had been indemnified by his insurer) could recover a solicitor's 100% success fee under a Collective Conditional Fee Agreement in a subrogated claim against a local authority for tree-related subsidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Council's appeal, leaving the judge's decision allowing the success fee in place. The court indicated the existence of the claimant's insurance was not decisive to the question of recoverability.
- Halliwells LLP v NES Solicitors [2011] EWHC 947 (QB) This is a dispute between NES Solicitors and their insurer Quinn about whether Quinn must indemnify NES for a claim by Halliwells relating to an undertaking to pay £1,500,000 given by NES on 22 December 2008. The judge found on the balance of probabilities that NES had been retained only to provide that undertaking (not to provide services in private legal practice) and that the claim was excluded by the policy for dishonesty/benefit; accordingly Quinn was declared not liable to indemnify NES and NES’s claim against Quinn was dismissed.
- Halliwells LLP v NES Solicitors This case concerns NES Solicitors' claim for a declaration that their insurer Quinn must indemnify them against Halliwells LLP's claim to enforce an undertaking to pay £1,500,000. The judge found on the balance of probabilities that NES had been retained only to provide the undertaking (not to provide services in private legal practice as solicitors) and that the undertaking involved dishonest conduct, so the insurer's exclusions applied. The claim against Quinn was dismissed and a declaration was made that Quinn was not liable to indemnify NES.
- Melinda Holdings SA v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd [2011] EWHC 181 (Comm) This case concerned a Liberian owner's claim under a war risks policy after its ship SILVA was arrested in Egypt and became a constructive total loss, with agreed damages of US$19,200,000. The principal issues were whether exclusions in Rule 3.6 (ordinary judicial process) or Rule 3.15 (sue and labour obligation) applied to defeat the claim. The court found Hellenic had failed to establish any applicable exclusion or a breach of the sue and labour obligation and therefore Melinda was entitled to recover the agreed sum.
- Global Process Systems Inc and another v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad [2011] UKSC 5 This case concerns loss of three jack-up rig legs during a tow, insured under an "all risks" marine cargo policy subject to an inherent vice exclusion. The central issue was whether the proximate cause of the loss was a peril of the seas (fortuitous sea-induced leg‑breaking stress) or inherent vice/fatigue, which would be excluded. The Supreme Court dismissed the insurers' appeal, endorsing the trial judge's finding that the immediate cause of the loss (the leg‑breaking stress) was a fortuitous peril of the seas and not excluded.
- Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 24 This appeal concerned whether cargo captured by Somali pirates amounted to an actual total loss (ATL) as at the date the insured served notice of abandonment. The court treated whether the cargo was "irretrievably deprived" as the material issue and, agreeing with the judge below, rejected the insured's ATL claim because recovery by ransom (effected by the owner) meant the cargo was not irretrievably lost. The appeal was dismissed.
- Meritz Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Jan De Nul NV (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 3362 (Comm) This was an insurance-coverage dispute about whether Meritz was liable under three Advance Payment Guarantees (APGs) given in respect of shipbuilding contracts after the original builder underwent merger and partitioning. The central issues were whether the APGs were classic suretyship (and thus discharged by material variation or change of corporate identity) and whether, as performance bonds, demands after the corporate changes could validly trigger payment. The judge held Meritz liable on the APGs for the sums claimed by the defendants, awarding the counterclaimed amounts and contractual interest.
- AXL Resources Ltd v Antares Underwriting Services Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 3244 (Comm) This was a Part 24 summary judgment application by AXL Resources for US$1,825,415.01 under a marine open cargo all-risks policy after 20 tonnes of cobalt went missing from a bonded warehouse; the principal contested issue was whether the policy exclusion for "Mysterious Disappearance and Stocktaking Losses" applied. The judge concluded that, on the evidence available (including police investigation material pointing to theft and no indication of warehouse or claimant collusion), there was no real prospect that the defendants could establish the exclusion and granted summary judgment for the claimant. The court fixed interest to start from 1 April 2009 and directed further submissions on quantum of interest and post-judgment matters.
- Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau [2010] EWCA Civ 1208 This case concerns whether the Motor Insurers Bureau must assess compensation for a UK resident injured in Spain by an uninsured/unidentified foreign driver according to English law or Spanish law. The MIB argued Rome II required Spanish law; the Court of Appeal held that regulation 13(2)(b) treats the accident as having occurred in Great Britain and that the MIB's obligation to compensate is to be assessed under English law, allowing the appeal.
- Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc & Ors [2010] EWHC 2636 (Comm) This was a trial on liability in a dispute where five related claimant companies sought indemnity from their insurers for loss caused by a fire at Brentwood on 13 September 2009. The principal contested issues included alleged material non-disclosure by the claimants, breaches of several warranties (kitchen and burglar alarm), and a condition precedent about external waste containers. The court held that the defendants were entitled to avoid the policy for material non-disclosure and, in any event, were excused from liability for breaches of the kitchen and burglar-alarm warranties; judgment was given for the defendants.
- Dredger "Kamal XXVI" & the Barge "Kamal XXIV" (The Owners And/or Demise Charterers of) v "Ariela" (Owners of the Ship) & Ors [2010] EWHC 2531 (Comm) Ariela defended and defeated a fraudulent claim by Kamal and sought disclosure and costs from the Underwriters who had funded Kamal’s litigation. The court considered whether privilege protected documents held by the Underwriters and their solicitors and concluded that, on the supplied text, the fraud exception to privilege applied because the insurers/solicitors had been used as instruments of the fraud; disclosure was ordered. The court did not, in the supplied excerpts, record a final determination of the costs order against the Underwriters.
- Employers' Liability Insurance "Trigger" Litigation, Re [2010] EWCA Civ 1096 This appeal concerns how employers' liability insurance policies respond to mesothelioma claims: whether liability is triggered by tortious asbestos exposure during a policy year or by the later onset/manifestation of mesothelioma in that year. The court analysed many different policy wordings and concluded that some wordings (described as causation wording) respond to exposure during the period of insurance, while other wordings require the employee to be such when the injury or disease is sustained and therefore do not respond to mesothelioma that develops after the policy period. The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 endorsement extended cover for employees and ex‑employees in certain wordings.
- Gard Marine and Energy Ltd & Ors v Glacier Reinsurance AG [2010] EWCA Civ 1052 This appeal concerned whether Gard Marine and Energy Ltd could sue Glacier Reinsurance AG in the English Commercial Court under Article 6 of the Lugano Convention in respect of participation in an excess of loss reinsurance placement. The material issue was whether there was a risk of irreconcilable judgments and a sufficient connection with England and Wales to justify consolidation of related claims in one forum. The Court of Appeal dismissed Glacier’s appeal, upholding the judge’s conclusion that the claims should be heard in England and Wales to avoid that risk.
- Mortimer v Motor Insurance Bureau, First Great Western This is an appeal by Mrs Mortimer against a two-year general civil restraint order made by His Honour Judge Griggs on 14 January 2008, which prevented her issuing claims or applications in the High Court or Devon and Cornwall county courts without prior permission. The appeal was treated as academic after the restraint order expired on 14 January 2010, Mrs Mortimer did not attend or prosecute the appeal, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal summarily.
- Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales [2010] EWCA Civ 805 This dispute concerned Quinn Direct Insurance seeking production of South Bank Solicitors' documents held by the Law Society after regulatory intervention, so Quinn could decide whether to indemnify a partner (Mr Ikoku) under the professional indemnity policy. The key issue was whether the Law Society was obliged to disclose documents subject to client legal privilege to a qualifying insurer. The Court of Appeal dismissed Quinn's appeal, holding that privileged client documents need not be produced to the insurer absent client consent or an implied waiver.
- Ghadami & Anor v Lyon Cole Insurance Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 767 This appeal concerned whether the claimants (as unsuccessful plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant broker's costs) were only liable for the £1,000 excess that Lyon Cole had paid, because Lyon Cole's professional indemnity insurer had paid the remainder. The Court of Appeal held that no agreement had been shown limiting Lyon Cole's liability to £1,000, that the insurer's payment did not prevent Lyon Cole (through its solicitors) recovering reasonable fees and disbursements, and that the appeal was dismissed with a detailed assessment of costs ordered.
- Persimmon Homes Ltd & Anor v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc [2010] EWHC 1705 (Comm) This case concerned an After-the-Event (ATE) insurance policy which the underwriters sought to avoid for material misrepresentation and non-disclosure; the successful defendant (Persimmon) pursued the insured's rights under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act. The court found that underwriters did not have actual knowledge of facts establishing a right to avoid, had not elected to affirm the policy, and dismissed Persimmon’s claim. The judgment also records that the insureds (the Traceys) gave dishonest evidence, which undermined Persimmon’s case.
- Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni General SA (UK Branch) (t/a Generali Global Risk) This appeal concerned whether a combined property damage and business interruption policy covered business losses concurrently caused by physical damage to the insured hotel and by damage to the surrounding city (the vicinity) from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The central issue was the applicable causation test and the proper construction of the Policy's Trends Clause. The court upheld the arbitral tribunal's approach that business interruption under the main insuring clause is recoverable only for loss caused by physical Damage to the insured property (applying a "but for" approach), and that wider losses from city-wide damage are recoverable only under specific extensions (Loss of Attraction / Prevention of Access). The appeal was dismissed.
- Yeganeh v Zurich Plc This case concerns a claim under a buildings and contents insurance policy after the claimant's house burned down on 14 September 2007. Zurich alleged the claimant deliberately caused the fire and/or made fraudulent contents claims; the court concluded Zurich did not prove deliberate fire but did establish that the claimant made a false/partly fraudulent claim for clothing, and applied that finding to dismiss the entire insurance claim.
- Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 556 This is a conjoined appeal about whether, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and in light of Community law, insurers who are required to compensate passengers injured by an uninsured negligent driver may reclaim that compensation from the injured passenger who was himself insured and had permitted the uninsured driver to use the vehicle. Two judges below reached opposite answers: His Honour Judge Godfrey answered for the insurers and denied Tracy Evans compensation from Equity, while Blair J answered against the insurers and gave judgment for Benjamin Wilkinson; the Court of Appeal was asked to decide which view was correct and whether a reference to the Court of Justice was required.
- IRB Brasil Resseguros SA v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd [2010] EWHC 974 (Comm) This was an appeal from an arbitration award about whether six selected reinsurance loss settlements under an excess-of-loss programme were recoverable from the reinsurer; the principal issues included the standard of proof under a "follow settlements" clause, whether one should look to underlying facts or the basis of compromise, and allocation/timing of loss. The court found that, notwithstanding some infelicities in wording, the Arbitrators had cited correct authorities, made uncontested factual findings and reached conclusions that did not disclose an error of law, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
- Geofizika DD v MMB International Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 459 This appeal concerned loss of three ambulances sold CIF CIP Tripoli and shipped on deck contrary to expectations, focusing on the sellers' obligation to procure insurance under the sale contract and the freight forwarders' warranty that the goods were shipped under deck. The court held that, because the INCOTERMS expressly limited the sellers' insurance obligation to Institute Cargo Clauses (C), that cover would not have insured the actual loss from wash-overboard, and the buyers therefore failed to establish recoverable loss; the Court of Appeal allowed the sellers' and freight forwarders' appeals.
- Jones v Environcom Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm) This dispute arose from a serious fire at Environcom's refrigerator-recycling premises and Woodbrook's avoidance of the policy for alleged non-disclosure (including use of plasma cutters and prior fires). Environcom sued its broker Miles Smith for negligent broking; the judge found that, even accepting breach, Environcom could not show that cover would in fact have operated or that the broker's breach caused the loss (the fire was attributable to plasma cutter use and pentane risk), and dismissed Environcom's claim.
- Loyaltrend Ltd & Anor v Creechurch Dedicated Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 425 (Comm) This was an insurance claim for subsidence damage and consequent business interruption to a retail shop, with the key issues being whether material damage occurred within the Second Defendant's (Brit's) policy period and whether the Claimants complied with the policy's notice condition. The court found for the Defendants because the Claimants failed to comply with a condition precedent as to notice.
- Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd [2010] EWHC 280 (Comm) This dispute arose from the 2008 seizure by Somali pirates of a tanker carrying the claimant’s biodiesel and the claimant’s subsequent notice of abandonment asserting actual or constructive total loss. The central issue was whether, as at the date of abandonment (18 September 2008), the claimant had been "irretrievably deprived" of the cargo or was entitled to treat the loss as unavoidable. The court held that the claimant had not proved either an actual or constructive total loss, the prospect and actuality of ransom-negotiated release defeating the asserted total loss.
- Goldsmith Williams (a firm) v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd [2010] EWHC 26 (QB) This case concerns a professional indemnity insurer's refusal to pay claims arising from solicitors' handling of mortgage transactions in which funds were stolen. The material issue was whether the policy permitted repudiation where a director/solicitor condoned dishonest or fraudulent conduct that led to the claim. The judge found that the claim arose from dishonesty by, or dishonest conduct condoned by, Ms Usman (and by Mr Atikpakpa) and that the insurer's primary defence succeeded, so the claim failed.
- Goldsmith Williams (a firm) v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd This dispute concerned a professional indemnity insurer's refusal to pay claims arising from mortgage transactions handled by Joshua & Usman Legal Services Ltd. The central issue was whether the policy clause permitted the insurer to repudiate cover where a director/solicitor (Ms Usman) condoned a course of dishonest or fraudulent conduct that led to the claims. The judge found that the claims arose from dishonesty by Ms Usman and/or from dishonesty by Mr Atikpakpa which she condoned, and concluded the insurer's primary defence succeeded so the claim failed.
- Global Process Systems Inc & Anr v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad [2009] EWCA Civ 1398 The dispute concerned loss of an oil rig (Cendor MOPU) during tow and whether that loss was excluded from an all-risks cargo policy as due to "inherent vice" rather than a peril of the sea. At first instance Blair J held the loss was due to inherent vice and excluded from cover. The Court of Appeal concluded the appeal should be allowed.
- National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA This dispute concerns whether a Spanish (Almeria) court judgment that an arbitration clause was not incorporated into a bill of lading can create issue estoppel preventing an English court from deciding the point differently. At first instance Gloster J held the Almeria decision was a judgment within the EU regulation but was not binding in the London arbitration proceedings (held to be excluded from the regulation), and she declared that under English law the bill of lading did contain an arbitration clause. The Court of Appeal hearing this appeal focused on whether the Almeria judgment is a regulation judgment and whether it gives rise to issue estoppel in the English proceedings.
- Cooper v National Westminster Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3035 (QB) This action concerned Mr Cooper's claim against NatWest arising from the bank's handling of an original foreign draft and a replacement draft, including delays and disputed communications about crediting funds. The court found for Mr Cooper and awarded damages of £11,452.18 with interest at 1% above Bank of England base rate for specified periods, while excluding interest for certain unexplained delay periods.
- Cooper v National Westminster Bank Plc This action concerned Mr Cooper's claim against NatWest arising from the bank's handling of a foreign (Euro) draft and a subsequently issued replacement draft that was not sent as requested, and the bank's later conduct in responding to his complaints. The material issue was whether NatWest's conduct entitled Mr Cooper to damages and interest. The judge awarded Mr Cooper damages of £11,452.18 and interest at 1% above the Bank of England base rate, subject to specified excluded periods.
- Maher & Anor v Groupama Grand Est [2009] EWCA Civ 1191 The case concerns UK proceedings by Mr and Mrs Maher against Groupama, the French insurer of a deceased driver who caused their injuries in France, raising whether damages and pre-judgment interest should be determined by English or French law. The High Court held damages are to be assessed by reference to English law and that both English and French law may be relevant to the award of interest; the Court of Appeal dismissed Groupama’s appeal.
- Equitas Ltd v R&Q Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2787 (Comm) These claims concern Equitas as assignee of Lloyd's syndicates seeking recovery under XL retrocessional reinsurance in the LMX spiral where the market initially erred by aggregating some losses and including irrecoverable items. The central issue was whether those initial "taints" preclude recovery unless the LMX spiral can be replicated without them; the judge concluded that, where replication is impossible, conservative actuarial modelling can establish minimum recoverable losses on the balance of probabilities. The court rejected R&Q's criticisms that the Equitas model failed to account for UNCC refunds or could not move from general to particular, and indicated declaratory relief with reciprocal undertakings and mechanisms for handling refunds.
- AON Ltd. v JCT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd. & Ors [2009] EWHC 3448 (QB) This dispute concerned Aon’s claim that JLT procured the mass resignation of Aon staff (team poaching) and sought interim relief including wide disclosure and preservation measures. The judge reviewed prior interim orders and declined to continue or renew a broad disclosure paragraph (paragraph 5) of the proposed order, discharging that part while noting other interim protections remained in place.
- AON Ltd. v JCT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd. & Ors Aon sued JLT and several former Aon employees alleging a concerted "team poaching" that led to resignations and misuse of confidential contacts and information. The case reached multiple interlocutory hearings about preservation, disclosure and other interim relief; the judge refused to continue a notably wide disclosure paragraph (paragraph 5) of the earlier without‑notice order. The refusal rested on disproportion, potential for increased interlocutory litigation and the view that existing interim protections and damages were an adequate remedy.
- Pope v Energem Resources Ltd. & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1086 This litigation arises from the 1998 kidnapping and presumed death of Jason Pope while employed at an Angolan mine and successive disputes between his family, his employer (IOM/Energem) and the insurer about life-insurance proceeds and related claims. The material issue before the Court of Appeal in this judgment was multiple applications for permission to appeal and costs-related challenges stemming from interlocutory orders in the High Court and district probate proceedings. The Lord Justice Richards refused permission to appeal on the matters before him, upholding the lower court’s exercise of discretion on costs and related procedural rulings.
- Dunlop Haywards (DHL) & Anor v Erinaceous Insurance Services Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 354 This interlocutory appeal concerns a producing broker (HPC) seeking to join excess insurers to a negligence/breach of contract action so they will participate in and be bound by trial issues of rectification and policy construction. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered joinder of the excess insurers for the purpose of litigating those rectification and construction issues.
- Direct Line Insurance Plc v Fox [2009] EWHC 386 (QB) This is a dispute between Direct Line and the owner of 26 Fallow Fields, Mr Fox, arising from a fire loss and subsequent claim under a buildings policy containing Condition 6 which voided the policy if any claim (or part of a claim) was fraudulent. The insurer questioned the authenticity of an invoice Mr Fox relied on and alleged fraud; the court concluded Mr Fox could not establish retraction and that his defences failed. The action was dismissed.
- Direct Line Insurance Plc v Fox This is an insurance dispute where Direct Line paid Mr Fox for fire damage to his house and later challenged an invoice Mr Fox produced, alleging fraud and invoking Policy Condition 6. The court considered whether Condition 6 rendered the policy void ab initio or only deprived the claimant of benefits prospectively in respect of the fraudulent claim, and whether the 1999 Regulations assisted Mr Fox. The judge held Condition 6 operated prospectively (not ab initio), rejected Mr Fox’s third line of defence, and dismissed the action.
- Porter v Zurich Insurance Company [2009] EWHC 376 (QB) This case concerned Mr Porter’s claim under a household insurance policy for damage after he set fire to his house while suffering from a delusional disorder, and separate claims for three subsequent thefts. The court rejected the fire claim and dismissed it following the liability trial, but did not finally dismiss the theft claims, finding they could not be summarily lost for breaches of the policy co‑operation condition and would need to be repleaded and supported at quantum.
- Porter v Zurich Insurance Company This dispute concerned Mr Porter’s claim under a household insurance policy for damage to his home caused when he deliberately set fire to it while intending suicide but later escaping; Zurich relied on an exclusion for wilful or malicious acts and public policy to resist indemnity. The court dismissed the fire claim. The court did not dismiss related theft claims arising after the fire but required them to be repleaded and supported with proper particulars and evidence.
- Laker Vent Engineering Ltd v Templeton Insurance Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 62 This appeal arises from a trial declaration that Templeton Insurance was bound under a Constructors Protection legal expenses policy to indemnify Laker Vent Engineering for legal costs and expenses arising from an arbitration with a third party beginning in 2005, and that Templeton was liable for any liability to pay others' legal costs up to £245,000. Templeton defended on grounds of non‑disclosure of a "material circumstance" before renewal and failure to comply with the policy's claims‑notification clause; the trial judge rejected both defences. Templeton obtained permission to appeal and now challenges the judge's factual and legal conclusions on non‑disclosure and notification.
- Maher & Anor v Groupama Grand EST [2009] EWHC 38 (QB) This case concerned whether, in a direct claim by English-resident road-accident victims against the French insurer of the French driver who caused the collision in France, damages and pre-judgment interest are to be governed by French or English law. The court held that damages are to be assessed by reference to English law. The court held that the question of pre-judgment interest may involve both French and English law depending on the facts.
- Maher & Anor v Groupama Grand EST This case concerns whether damages and pre-judgment interest in a direct claim by injured parties against the insurer of a French driver should be governed by French or English law. The judge held that damages are to be assessed by reference to English law. He held that both French and English law are potentially relevant to the award of pre-judgment interest, depending on the facts.
- Nicholas G Jones v Environcom Limited & Anor [2009] EWHC 16 (Comm) This case concerns insurers' application for security for costs in response to a substantial counterclaim by Environcom companies after insurers sought declarations avoiding two insurance policies for alleged non-disclosure. The material issue was whether security for costs should be awarded for the counterclaim and, if so, in what amount. The court determined the preliminary issues in insurers' favour and indicated that security should be awarded in the full amount of insurers' costs of the counterclaim.
- Reilly v National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1460 This case concerns whether an endorsement (TP34S) excluding cover for failure of "machinery" to perform its intended function excluded the insured's liability for loss caused when a fixed CO2 fire-suppression system failed to operate. The Court of Appeal held that the master cylinder valves and actuators could properly be described as "machinery" and that, if the system failed because the actuator piston failed to latch, the exclusion applied; but if the cause was insufficient cylinder pressure (from underfilling or incorrect pressurisation) or leakage at the discharge valve seal, the exclusion did not apply. The appeal was allowed in part on those bases.
- Bray Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor v Silvera [2008] EWHC 3147 (QB) This was a claim by two solicitor firms for basic fees under conditional fee agreements (CFAs) for work done for Mr Silvera; he disputed liability principally on grounds of non-compliance with the Regulations governing CFAs and breaches of the retainer. The material issue was whether the firms complied with the Regulations (notably regulation 4(2)(c)–(e)) in advising and enquiring about possible insurance and other funding options. The judge found the firms had complied with the Regulations and entered judgment for the claimants for recovery of their basic fees.
- Bray Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor v Silvera The claimants, two solicitor firms, sought recovery of basic fees under conditional fee agreements (CFAs) for work done representing the defendant in prior litigation. The defendant contested liability principally on grounds of non-compliance with CFA regulations and breaches of the retainer. The judge found no breach of the relevant regulations (notably regulation 4(2)(c),(d) and (e)) and entered judgment for the claimants for their basic fees.
- Aspen Insurance UK Ltd & Ors v Pectel Ltd [2008] EWHC 2804 (Comm) This case concerns whether an insurer could decline indemnity because the assured failed to give "immediate written notice" of an occurrence under condition 4(a) of a liability policy. The court held that compliance with condition 4(a) is a condition precedent to the underwriters' liability. As a result, the insurers were entitled to decline liability for claims arising from the March 2004 tunnel fire.
- Falcongate Freight Management v Zurich Insurance Company (t/a Zurich Commercial) [2008] EWCA Civ 1644 This is an insurer dispute arising after an employee (Mr Toft) was injured following a contested TUPE transfer from Falcongate Freight Management (F) to Falcongate Scotland (S). The key issue was whether the employee’s contract (and any right to indemnity under F’s employer’s liability policy) had transferred to S so as to deprive F’s insurer of liability under the policy in force after the transfer. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant insurer’s appeal, holding that the judgment below should not have been entered for F.
- Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 876 This appeal concerns Mr Masri's challenge to Master Miller's setting aside of without-notice CPR 71 orders requiring two former officers of the judgment debtors (TK and SK) to attend court and provide information for enforcement of a judgment. The principal issues included the court's jurisdiction to make such orders and the exercise of discretion (including questions about full and frank disclosure on without‑notice applications). The Court of Appeal, after considering jurisdiction and discretion, dismissed the appeal in SK's case but allowed it in TK's case and restored the order against TK subject to any remaining service issues.
- Oriakhel v Groupama Insurance Co Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 748 The Court of Appeal considered whether HHJ Copley was wrong to refuse a non-party costs order against Mr Mohammed Munaver Khan, a witness found in the primary judgment to have been a co‑conspirator and to have given false evidence. The court concluded that the refusal was not wrong and dismissed the appeal, noting factors bearing on non‑party costs applications and the relevance of witness immunity to costs based on evidence given in court.
- Spencer v Secretary for Work & Pensions The appeals concern when a cause of action for damages against the Secretary of State for failure to implement Community law accrues, and whether the claims are time‑barred. The judgment reasons that, if the facts giving rise to liability had already occurred, the claimant suffered loss when he suffered his injury and the cause of action therefore existed from that time. The court also endorsed an approach favouring procedural efficiency by allowing a supplementary state‑liability cause of action to operate alongside ordinary causes so the two can be tried together.
- Ramco Ltd & Anor v Weller Russell & Laws Insurance Brokers Ltd [2008] EWHC 2202 (QB) This case concerns two related companies whose stock was destroyed by fire and who sued their insurance broker after underwriters denied substantial claims under a policy procured by the broker. A preliminary issue led underwriters to accept Ramco’s claim in full but not RIL’s, and RIL discontinued further proceedings against underwriters. The defendant broker sought late permission to amend pleadings to allege RIL should have pursued underwriters on the basis of a prior concession; the court refused that application and dismissed the proposed amendment.
- Ramco Ltd & Anor v Weller Russell & Laws Insurance Brokers Ltd This case concerns two related companies (Ramco and RIL) whose stored stock was destroyed by fire and who sued their insurers after underwriters denied significant parts of the claims; the claimants also sued their insurance broker for procuring allegedly inappropriate cover. A key factual dispute concerned ownership/entitlement to the RIL stock under a written agreement with Mr Murray and whether underwriters were liable; RIL discontinued its action against underwriters after an adverse position remained. The court refused a late application by the broker to amend its pleaded case seeking to rely on RIL's failure to pursue underwriters, and the judge rejected that amendment as untimely and requiring further evidence and adjournment.
- Lexington Insurance Company & Ors v Multinacional De Seguros SA (Rev 1) [2008] EWHC 1170 (Comm) This commercial judgment concerns reinsurance of a Venezuelan insurer (Multinacional) by Lexington and others under seven reinsurance slips and whether a Claims Settlement Clause was incorporated and breached. The court accepted that the clause was incorporated and found that a letter of 3 April 2002—contrary to an agreed strategy and likely to encourage the insured by suggesting the time‑bar defence was legally incorrect—amounted to a breach of the clause (the judge invited submissions on the consequential order).
- Parker v Mowlem Plc & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 1022 The claimant, injured at work, sued multiple defendants including a subcontractor whose insurers sought a preliminary ruling that they were not obliged to indemnify. The court decided the insurers were not bound to indemnify (unchallenged) and dismissed the claimant’s appeal against a costs order that made the claimant liable for the insurers’ costs of the preliminary issue. The Court of Appeal held the judge had been entitled to exercise his discretion to order the claimant to pay those costs.
- Morton Insurance Brokers Ltd. v Sidhu [2008] EWHC 417 (QB) This is a claim by Morton Insurance Brokers against their former employee Mr Sidhu for breach of the contractual duty of good faith, alleging he backdated manual Sabre cover notes to pretend motorists had cover at the time of accidents. The judge found on the evidence that Mr Sidhu backdated the disputed cover notes, rejected his explanations, and awarded Morton various heads of loss including the £55,000 paid to Sabre and other specified costs and increased premiums.
- Morton Insurance Brokers Ltd. v Sidhu This case concerns Morton Insurance Brokers' claim against its former employee, Mr Avtar Sidhu, alleging he backdated manual Sabre cover notes to show drivers were insured at the time of accidents. The judge found on the evidence that Mr Sidhu had backdated the disputed cover notes and Morton was entitled to recover sums including the £55,000 paid to Sabre and specified additional losses, interest and costs.
- Kosmar Villa Holidays Plc v Trustees of Syndicate 1243 [2008] EWCA Civ 147 This appeal concerned whether an insurer had waived a condition precedent in a policy requiring immediate written notice of an occurrence, either by irrevocable election or by estoppel, after the insured gave late notice of a serious injury. The court held there was no unequivocal communication by the insurer and no sufficient reliance by the insured, and therefore the insurer had not waived its right to rely on the late-notification condition; the appeal was allowed for the insurer.
- WASA International Insurance Company Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 150 This is an appeal about whether English-law reinsurance covered remediation costs that a US court had held recoverable by the primary insured for pollution damage spanning many years. The material issue was whether the same policy-period wording in the reinsurance should be construed the same way as in the underlying US insurance as interpreted by a US court, or whether the English reinsurers could limit liability to damage occurring during the reinsurers' stated period. The Court of Appeal allowed Lexington's appeal, concluding that the same period of cover should bear the same construction in both contracts and that the reinsurers bore the risk of changes in applicable US law.
- Banfield & Anor v Leeds Building Society [2007] EWCA Civ 1369 This appeal concerned Leeds Building Society's possession claim against Mr and Mrs Banfield and whether arrears in November 2005 justified proceedings given a dispute about the Society's failure to surrender a second endowment policy in 1996. The Court of Appeal accepted the Society's calculations of arrears and concluded that, even allowing for the policy proceeds, sufficient arrears remained to justify proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
- Coromin Ltd v AXA Re & Ors [2007] EWHC 2818 (Comm) This case concerned Coromin's claim under global all-risks reinsurance for physical damage to a large gearless mill motor at a Chilean mine and consequent business interruption losses, including loss to a molybdenum plant. The principal issue was whether the BI cover should be limited by an implied term so that only business existing at the date of damage (or during the policy year) was recoverable. The court rejected such an implied limitation and held Coromin entitled to recover for the damaged stator, repair costs and the resulting business interruption loss within the two-year period.
- AIG Europe (Ireland) Ltd v Faraday Capital Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1208 This appeal concerned construction of a standard Claims Co-operation Clause in liability reinsurance and whether the reinsured/reinsurer had "knowledge of any loss which may give rise to a claim" triggering a 30‑day notification obligation. The Court held that AIG knew of a loss which might give rise to a claim earlier than the date on which it notified reinsurers, and allowed the appeal, entering judgment for the appellant.
- Outokumpu Stainless Ltd v AXA Global Risks (UK) Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 2555 (Comm) This was a coverage dispute about costs incurred after a shielded plutonium source was melted in an electric arc furnace, contaminating slag and some plant. The judge held that the "radioactive contamination memorandum" reinstated excluded risks only to the extent of property damage cover (e.g. repair/cleaning to put plant back into operation) and did not extend to purely economic costs of disposal of valueless contaminated slag. The judge did not need to decide all exclusion arguments but indicated he would reject insurers' causation contention under Exclusion 7.
- Pope v Branch Energy Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 994 This is a renewed application for permission to appeal by Mrs Pope arising from her claim that her late son’s employer breached an employment contract requiring death insurance cover, after he was captured and presumed dead in Angola. The court reviewed interlocutory rulings about permitting amendments to add representative claims for other estates and about the treatment of an ex gratia/insurance payment by Norwich Union, holding that a judge may relist a hearing where a party was absent and that insurer monies can be treated as part payment of contractual liability (with escrow alone not constituting payment). The judgment does not, in the supplied text, record any final appellate disposition of the renewed permission applications.
- Pope v Branch Energy Ltd (Aka Koidu Holding) [2007] EWCA Civ 994 This is a renewed application for permission to appeal two interlocutory orders in a claim by Mrs Pope arising from her son’s presumed death after capture in Angola, including an application to amend to act for foreign estates and disputes about an ex gratia/insurance payment. The court considered (a) that the judge could rehear an application made in the absence of a respondent and relist under CPR 23.11, and (b) that monies paid by Norwich Union could be treated as part payment of contractual liability to avoid double recovery. The judgment records sympathy for Mrs Pope but upholds the judge’s procedural and substantive rulings as reflected in the reasons given.
- Tesco Stores Ltd. v Constable & Ors [2007] EWHC 2088 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether Tesco's public liability and excess insurers were obliged to indemnify sums Tesco paid to Chiltern under a contractual Deed of Covenant following a tunnel collapse that closed a railway. The key issue was whether the Insuring Clause covered contractual liabilities for losses that would not have been recoverable in tort. The judge held the clause covers liability only where the third party suffered harm compensable in tort and therefore Tesco was not entitled to indemnity for Chiltern's contractual losses.
- Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923 This appeal concerned recovery of the cost of hiring a replacement car while the claimant's car was repaired after a negligent collision and whether the defendant/tortfeasor (or their insurers) was entitled to a credit for a payment made by the claimant's insurer or its affiliate. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with Morison J. that the claimant could recover the reasonable cost of hire even though his insurer arranged and paid for the hire and received a payment from the hire company; the defendants were not, on the material facts, entitled to require disclosure or a credit for the affiliate payment.
- R & V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance & Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 807 This case concerns applications for permission to appeal in complex litigation between R & V Versicherung AG and companies in the Risk group arising from disputed binders and addenda under which Risk purportedly to write reinsurance and extract an additional 40% commission. The material issues included whether the addenda were authorised or part of a fraud, findings about Mr Gebauer exceeding authority and possible dishonesty, and procedural orders including striking out Risk's defence for non‑compliance with court directions. The Court of Appeal refused all permissions to appeal save for one limited issue (part of application 1707) concerning whether R+V may be amenable to contempt jurisdiction in respect of Mr Kernbach; further questions on security for costs and appeal conditions were to be dealt with promptly.
- Korea National Insurance Corp v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2007] EWHC 1744 (Comm) The claimant (a DPRK insurer) sought enforcement in England of a Pyongyang judgment against reinsurers and applied for summary judgment. The reinsurers sought to amend their defence to allege that a post‑loss meeting varied the reinsurance contract (and that the claimant committed fraud in enforcing Euros payment), but the court refused leave to amend, concluding that the proposed alternative had no realistic prospect of success and would unfairly surprise the claimant.
- AXA Insurance UK Plc v Norwich Union Insurance Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1046 (Comm) This dispute concerned which insurer—AXA under an employers' liability policy or Norwich Union under a motor liability policy—must indemnify Floodlighting for its liability to employee Aaron Keeble arising from an accident while he was in the vehicle's elevating platform. The court decided that AXA is liable because, on its reading of section 145(4A) as set out in the judgment, the word "carried" refers to a person being transported and therefore Floodlighting's liability to Keeble is insured under the employers' liability policy.
- Wasa International Insurance Company Ltd. v Lexington Insurance Co [2007] EWHC 896 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether two reinsurers (Wasa and AGF) were liable under a contributing facultative reinsurance slip for Lexington's settlement of Alcoa's environmental cleanup claims, and whether the slip's $1,675,000 retention was a one-off sum or a per-occurrence retention and whether Lexington could recover defence costs from them. The court held that Wasa and AGF were not obliged to follow Lexington's settlement, that the $1,675,000 retention was a per-occurrence retention, and that Lexington could not recover its defence costs from Wasa and AGF.
- Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd. v Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company [2007] EWHC 893 (Comm) This dispute concerned the Bank's claim under a credit indemnity Policy following Eurotunnel's initiation of French sauvegarde proceedings and whether the Insurer was obliged to indemnify the Bank under clause 1(i)(c) (alternatively 1(i)(b)/(d)). The court found that the Insurer was liable and granted summary judgment for the Bank on its primary clause 1(i)(c) claim, but ordered that the judgment sum be reduced by €8,887,950 and allowed interest as assessed. The court also rejected the Insurer's submission that interest should be withheld for the earlier period claimed.
- Jafari-Fini v Skillglass Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 261 This appeal arises from disputes about Chesterton's 2003 acquisition and an alleged bribe paid on 27 June 2003 in connection with that acquisition. The Court of Appeal review (per Carnwath LJ) found that the deputy judge had concentrated unduly on implausibility in the Claimant’s account and had not sufficiently addressed weaknesses in the Defendants’ case; on that basis the judge’s conclusion that the payment was a bribe intended to influence Skillglass’s consent could not be supported. The appellate judgment concluded the evidence did not establish the Defendants’ case that the payment was a bribe intended to procure Skillglass’s consent.
- Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2007] EWHC 697 (Comm) This commercial judgment concerns an application by Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy for security for costs against Gater Assets Ltd, the assignee of a New York Convention arbitral award, in relation to Naftogaz’s application to set aside an enforcement order made under s.101(2) of the Arbitration Act. The material issue was whether security for costs should be ordered against Gater given the circumstances, including allegations of fraud. The judge found that Naftogaz had shown a case of fraud and, notwithstanding the hurdles to its set-aside application and other submissions, ordered Gater to provide security for costs in the sum of £250,000.
- Barbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 148 This appeal concerns admitted debts under a 1985 Facility with a clause restricting assignment unless the Borrower (BoZ) gave prior written consent (deemed after 15 days' silence). The judge held issue (1) (that deemed consent permitted the assignment to Bank of America and so BoZ's prior consent point failed) in favour of the beneficiaries (BT), but decided issue (2) (that a declaration of trust could not be used to permit BT to enforce the debt directly against BoZ in circumvention of Article 12.01(A)) in favour of BoZ. BT appealed issue (2) and BoZ gave notice appealing issue (1).
- Dornoch Ltd. & Ors v The Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd. & Anor (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 155 (Comm) This dispute between London-market reinsurers and a Mauritian insurer/bank concerned whether losses from prolonged, allegedly unauthorised transactions fell within an Excess Physical Loss or Damage reinsurance and whether they were discovered within a 72‑hour discovery condition and exceeded the deductible. The judge held that the 72‑Hour Condition operates as a qualification to the infidelity extension to property cover—designed to exclude systemic long‑running employee fraud—and, applying that interpretation, the Claimant reinsurers had no liability under the Excess Reinsurance for the losses alleged in the Mauritian proceedings.
- R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2007] EWHC 79 (Comm) This case concerns R+V's claim against members of the Risk group for conspiracy and sums due under binders, and a subsequent application by the second and third defendants to set aside Moore-Bick J's orders against them. The material issue before Gloster J was whether she could and should set aside those orders under CPR 3.1(7) or the slip rule, or whether any such challenge must be pursued on appeal. She dismissed the second and third defendants' application, holding that variations or revocations of Moore-Bick J's orders must be sought on appeal and, even if she had power, she would not exercise it in the defendants' favour.
- Brit Syndicates Ltd & Ors v Grant Thornton International & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1661 This appeal concerned the proper construction of extension 3 of a professional indemnity policy which purported to include Grant Thornton International (GTI) as an Assured Firm "but solely in respect of claims made against Grant Thornton International arising from claims made against a member firm ... insured by the terms and conditions of this policy." The Court of Appeal held that extension 3 is parasitic on claims which are themselves within the ambit of the policy as against a member firm, and that if the member firm never had cover (for example because the policy was avoided as to that firm) GTI has no claim under extension 3. The Court allowed the appeal and granted the declaration sought by Brit.
- KR & Ors v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc [2006] EWCA Civ 1454 This appeal concerned whether an insurer was liable under a liability policy for sexual and physical abuse committed at residential children’s homes after the insured company was wound up, and how to construe an exclusion for deliberate acts by the insured and by "partners, directors or managerial employees". The court held that deliberate abuse by the insured, by John Allen, and by principals/unit heads (construed as "managerial employees") fell outside cover from the relevant dates, while other abuse found by the trial judge remained covered. The insurer’s appeal was allowed to the extent indicated and the parties were invited to agree financial consequences; costs were to be reconsidered.
- AIG Europe (Ireland) Ltd v Faraday Capital Ltd [2006] EWHC 2707 (Comm) This is a reinsurance dispute about the construction and operation of a claims co-operation/notification clause in a reinsurance policy and whether the condition precedent was satisfied when the cedant sought recovery. The judge considered timeliness of notification, the scope of the clause, and related arguments about allocation of a settlement. The court rejected the defendant's "Lumbermen's" point and held the claim well founded, awarding judgment for the claimants.
- WPP Holdings Italy Srl & Ors v Benatti [2006] EWHC 1641 (Comm) This was a jurisdiction challenge to English proceedings brought by WPP Italy, WPP 2005 and BSH against an Italian national, Mr Benatti, arising from a 2002 consultancy Agreement governed by English law. The central issue was whether the English courts had jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Judgments Regulation over claims for breach of the Agreement and related fiduciary duties, including claims by WPP 2005 and BSH who were not the original contracting party. The judge held that the Agreement was not an individual contract of employment and that the English courts did have jurisdiction under Article 23, dismissing Mr Benatti’s challenge.
- R+Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2006] EWHC 1705 (Comm) This Commercial Court judgment concerned (inter alia) the quantification of R+V's claim for managerial, staff and external contractors' time spent investigating and mitigating an alleged conspiracy, and an application alleging contempt based on conduct abroad. The judge applied the approach previously stated by Gloster J on recoverability of such time and costs (subject to proof of attribution and reasonableness) and dealt with particularity of evidence; on the contempt point the court struck out Risk's application to commit Dr Hasse and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to punish alleged criminal contempts committed abroad. The judgment therefore declined to order committal for contempt and proceeded to assess quantum issues consistent with earlier rulings.
- ING RE (UK) Ltd. v R & V Versicherung Ag [2006] EWHC 1544 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether R & V Versicherung AG was bound by an 85% reinsurance quota share treaty signed by Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions, on the basis that Risk had ostensible authority or that R & V ratified the treaty. The supplied judgment extract records that Risk had no actual authority to execute the treaty and, after considering the parties' conduct, the judge concluded he was not persuaded that R & V had represented that Risk had authority or that R & V ratified the contract. The judgment notes relevant findings and arguments about knowledge, silence and possible uncertainty by R & V but parts of the reasoning are omitted in the supplied text.
- Talbot Underwriting Ltd v Nausch, Hogan & Murray Inc [2006] EWCA Civ 889 This case concerns claims by London market insurers, as assignees of the shipyard (Sembawang) and the owner (CPL), against brokers (NHM) for failing to procure a builders' all risks policy naming Sembawang as co-assured. The material issue was whether that failure caused loss and whether Sembawang or CPL could have recovered under the London policy notwithstanding Sembawang not being named. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's conclusions that the brokers' failure caused the stated net losses and dismissed the appeal.
- Shinedean Ltd v Alldown Demolition (London) Ltd & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 939 This appeal concerned whether an insured's obligation under policy conditions precedent to provide an insurer with proofs and information had to be performed within a "reasonable time" and whether an insurer's lack of prejudice could excuse late compliance. The Court of Appeal held that the reasonable time had long elapsed before the relevant documents were provided and allowed the insurer's appeal.
- Heath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros & Anor [2006] EWHC 1345 (QB) This case concerns whether the claimant broker, Heath Lambert, had a lien over insurance loss proceeds to secure unpaid premiums and related procedural relief between the parties. The judge held that Heath Lambert has a lien over the policy proceeds as against Banesco and any intermediary, which may be maintained until the premium is paid, and directed that Banesco’s counterclaim be stayed under CPR r.3.1.2(f) with parties to agree a draft order. Earlier hearing orders (default judgment against the First Defendant and permission to discontinue against the Second Defendant) were noted.
- Heath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros & Anor This judgment concerns whether Heath Lambert, a London reinsurance broker, has a lien over insurance claim proceeds to secure unpaid premiums it paid to reinsurers. The court found that Heath Lambert has a lien over the policy proceeds against Banesco and any intermediary and that the lien may be maintained until the premium is paid or otherwise satisfied; the judge directed that the parties propose a draft order providing for a stay of Banesco's counterclaim.
- Yaqoob & Anor v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 885 This appeal arose from an insured restaurant fire and concerned whether the insured had discharged the burden of proving the fire was not caused by him or with his connivance. The Court of Appeal found the County Court judge had failed to resolve key factual issues and concluded that, on the evidence, the insured had not discharged that burden. The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed.
- Dornoch Ltd & Ors v Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 389 This is an appeal about whether a London-market reinsurance (the Reinsurance) of a Mauritian bank's excess premises and transit policy was subject to a Mauritius jurisdiction clause and whether England was the appropriate forum for the reinsurers' declaratory and tort claims. The judge held that English law was the proper law, that England was the appropriate forum, and that the reinsurers had a good arguable case that no Mauritius jurisdiction clause was incorporated into the Reinsurance; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
- Heesens Yacht Builders BV v Cox Syndicate Management Ltd. & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 384 This dispute concerned whether a Builders Risk/Guarantee Risks insurance policy covered a yacht (Red Sapphire) that was delivered during the policy period but whose construction had begun before the policy began. The Court of Appeal held the guarantee cover applied only to vessels "as per building risks policy," meaning vessels on which construction had started within the insured period, so the Red Sapphire was not covered and the appeal was allowed.
- P (A Child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 421 This appeal concerned the meaning of "wilful" in an insurance exclusion for "any wilful, malicious or criminal acts" after an 11‑year‑old started a fire that allegedly destroyed stock. The Court of Appeal held that "wilful" in that context extends beyond mere deliberate action and encompasses recklessness — acting with awareness of, or indifference to, a risk of the relevant damage. Applying that construction, the court found the boy's conduct on the evidence was not reckless and dismissed the appeal.
- R+v Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm) This was a Commercial Court hearing addressing quantum issues after a prior judgment for the claimant R+V against Risk, including whether a 40% commission deduction under contemporaneous Addenda was recoverable and what heads of loss (notably staff time and claim-handling fees) R+V could recover. The judge held that a claimant cannot recover salaries simply because staff did work made necessary by a tort if those salaries would have been paid in any event, but that the cost of wasted staff time is in principle recoverable if the time is shown with sufficient certainty to have been directly attributable to investigating or mitigating the tort. The judge also found R+V entitled to recover additional staff costs for handling claims after the Binders’ termination, subject to credit for claim fees that would have been payable to Risk. The judgment does not state a concluded ruling on the recoverability of the 40% Deduction in the supplied text.
- Enterprise Oil Ltd v Strand Insurance Company Ltd [2006] EWHC 58 (Comm) This is a claim by Enterprise for indemnity under a liability policy issued by its captive insurer in respect of Enterprise’s contribution to a US settlement (14 March 2002) arising from disputes about termination of a drilling contract and related Texas litigation. The central issues included whether Enterprise would have been liable to Rowan in the Texas proceedings (notably for tortious interference with a Service Agreement), whether the Settlement Agreement was reasonable for policy purposes, and entitlement to defence costs. The court dismissed Enterprise’s action.
- Kr & Ors v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc [2006] EWHC 48 (QB) This dispute concerned claims by former residents of Bryn Alyn against the company's liability insurer under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 after findings of widespread abuse at Bryn Alyn. The key issues were when the insurer's cover began and whether policy exceptions for deliberate acts excluded the claims. The judge held that the insurer's cover incepted on 22 August 1976 (not before) and that the insurer's defence based on the deliberate-act exceptions failed.
- Kr & Ors v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc This is an action by former residents against Royal & Sun Alliance alleging the insurer was the Company's liability insurer and, under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, liable to them after the Company was wound up and judgments were obtained against it. The principal issues were whether the insurer provided cover before 22 August 1976 and whether the policy exclusions for deliberate acts prevented recovery. The judge held cover incepted on 22 August 1976 and rejected the insurer's exclusionary defences.
- Konkola Copper Mines Plc & Anor v Coromin Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 5 This is an appeal by reinsurers seeking a stay of Part 20 proceedings brought by Coromin, based on a claimed Zambian jurisdiction clause, in the context of a multi-layered insurance dispute about whether KCM’s loss was a "collapse" or "landslip". The Court of Appeal refused the stay and dismissed the reinsurers' appeal, upholding the judge’s discretionary refusal to stay the Part 20 proceedings.
- Bonner & Ors v Cox & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1512 This case concerned appeals by reinsurers and a Lloyd's syndicate against findings in a trial about (1) alleged non-disclosure relating to the "Elk Point" well blow-out, (2) an alleged material misrepresentation at placing in October 1999, and (3) liability under the Cover for an Oceaneering declaration and whether a term imposing a duty of prudence should be implied. The Court of Appeal rejected the challenges on the Oceaneering point, agreed with the judge that there had been no breach of any implied term and that the Oceaneering declaration was made prudently, and dismissed the appeals on all points.
- CGU International Insurance Plc & Ors v Astrazeneca Insurance Company Ltd [2005] EWHC 2755 (Comm) This appeal concerned which substantive law governs (1) AZICL’s liability under the underlying Excess Liability Policy and (2) the Reinsurers’ liability under the reinsurance contract, and asked what effect the reinsurance “follow the fortunes” clause had. The court held that both questions (1) and (2) are governed by English law. The tribunal’s view was that the “follow the fortunes” clause did not alter that conclusion in the circumstances of this case.
- Hsbc Rail (UK) Ltd. v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. (Formerly Railtrack Plc) This dispute concerned damage to rail carriages owned by HSBC and leased to GNER after the Hatfield derailment; HSBC sued Network Rail in negligence. The key issue was whether HSBC had suffered recoverable loss given the lease and insurance arrangements under the Master Operating Lease Agreement (MOLA). The Court held that, as GNER had assumed the loss risk and was indemnified (and had discharged HSBC’s reversionary position), HSBC had not suffered compensable loss and the claim failed.
- R + V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2005] EWHC 2586 (Comm) This judgment concerns an application by R+V to make Mr Jean-Claude Chalhoub, not originally a defendant, jointly and severally liable with four Risk group companies for costs ordered after trial. The central material findings were that Mr Chalhoub exercised a very high degree of control over the proceedings, that Risk's case relied substantially on his evidence, and that parts of that evidence were found to be false and dishonest. The court ordered Mr Chalhoub liable for R+V's costs jointly and severally with the original defendants.
- Talbot Underwriting Ltd. v Nausch Hogan & Murray [2005] EWHC 2359 (Comm) This case concerns a dispute between London insurers (as assignees) and brokers NHM arising from placement of a builders' risks policy for the vessel Jascon 5 and whether Sembawang, the shipyard, was an assured under that policy; the insurers refused Sembawang's claim on the ground it was not an assured. The proceedings were ordered as a trial of preliminary issues on agreed documents and facts, including contested questions about notification, non-disclosure and potential avoidance of the policy. The supplied text does not contain the court's final determinations on those issues.
- Dornoch Ltd. & Ors v The Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd. & Anor [2005] EWHC 1887 (Comm) This is a reinsurance dispute arising from a large fraud at MCB and claims under direct insurance and excess reinsurance policies placed in London. The court considered whether England was the appropriate forum and whether anti-suit injunctions obtained by the reinsurers should be maintained. The judge held that England was the more appropriate forum for the reinsurance action but discharged the ex parte anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions because the defendant-in-guarantee proceedings in Mauritius were not shown to be vexatious or oppressive.
- London North Securities Ltd v Tony James Meadows & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 956 This appeal concerned a 1989 consumer credit agreement secured by a charge on the borrowers' home and whether required payments (notably an insurance premium) fell within the "amount of credit" or the "total charge for credit" under the Consumer Credit Act. The Court of Appeal held that the insurance premium was part of the total charge for credit, not part of the amount of credit, so the agreement misstated the amount of credit and was unenforceable. The appeal was dismissed on that ground.
- Erc Frankona Reinsurance v American National Insurance Co [2005] EWHC 1381 (Comm) This was a dispute about a 1998/99 quota share reinsurance by ESR of American National (Anico), and ESR's claim that it had validly avoided the reinsurance (and an increase in its participation) for misrepresentation, non-disclosure or breach of warranty. The judge found key Anico witness evidence unreliable, accepted expert distinctions between types of US accident cover, and concluded that ESR were entitled to avoid the 1998/99 quota share and the agreement to increase their line because of non-disclosure about Mr Drobny and because of non-disclosure of losses under the Reliance National policy. The court said it would hear submissions as to the formal order to be made.
- Bank of India v Morris & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 693 This is an appeal by the Bank of India against Patten J's judgment awarding the liquidators of BCCI US$82,302,941, the claim being brought under section 213 for fraudulent trading. The key issue was whether BoI personnel (notably Mr Samant) knew they were assisting BCCI's fraud and related questions of attribution and amendment of pleadings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and refused BCCI's application to amend, concluding the proposed new claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts.
- OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 710 This appeal concerned whether an English court should grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain Canadian proceedings despite a bill of lading providing that English law and the High Court of London have exclusive jurisdiction and a Canadian statute (s.46(1)) permitting Canadian proceedings in some circumstances. The Court of Appeal upheld Langley J’s decision to enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause and grant injunctive relief, holding that the parties’ choice of English law and jurisdiction should be respected on the facts.
- Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin [2005] EWHC 898 (Comm) This was an application by reinsurers to stay Part 20 proceedings in England brought by Coromin and others, pending determination of related issues said to affect the reinsurers’ liability. The court assessed competing factors including the risk of inconsistent decisions, the likely timing of English and Zambian trials, and the desirability of joinder of Aon and having all issues decided by one tribunal. The application was dismissed and the court ordered the English proceedings to proceed with expedition and normal case management.
- American International Marine Agency of New York Inc & Anor v Dandridge [2005] EWHC 829 (Comm) This was a trial on agreed facts of a US$225,000 claim under a "Total Loss Only" reinsurance following the MV Avon being declared a total loss after a change of class and insured value by the lead hull insurers. The court found that the changes to the underlying insurance amounted to amendments which discharged the reinsurers from liability under the reinsurance, and answered that the "follow the leader" provision did not operate to preclude the reinsurers from contesting coverage. The Claimants' claim was dismissed.
- Rendall v Combined Insurance Company of America [2005] EWHC 678 (Comm) This is a dispute between Combined Insurance Company of America and its London reinsurers about whether deaths of Aon employees on 11 September 2001 were within the reinsured part of underlying AD&D/BTA insurance and whether the reinsurers validly avoided the facultative reinsurance for non‑disclosure. Applying Illinois law to policy construction, the court held that the 24Hr All Risk Hazard (Business Only) provision did not cover the deaths of 169 Aon employees (an evacuation/attempted evacuation was not an "authorized business trip") and granted a declaration to that effect. The claimant’s separate allegation of avoidance is pleaded but no final outcome on that issue is set out in the supplied text.
- Howells & Anor v Dominion Insurance Company Ltd [2005] EWHC 552 (QB) This dispute concerned whether a judgment and a final costs certificate obtained by an insurer against an unincorporated members' club could be enforced against named individual club members. The court held that represented members are not, as a matter of authority, individually liable for the costs order and dismissed the appeal on that point; enforcement of the judgment sum against individual members was left to the Master to reconsider in the exercise of his discretion, having regard to any special circumstances.
- Howells & Anor v Dominion Insurance Company Ltd This is an appeal by the insurer from Master Foster’s order relating to permission to enforce a judgment and a final costs certificate against named members of an unincorporated members’ club. The court considered whether the judgment and the costs certificate could be enforced against individual named members. The court rejected arguments that individual members were automatically liable for costs, remitted the question of enforcing the judgment against named members to the Master to exercise his discretion having regard to any special circumstances, and dismissed the insurer’s challenge on the costs point.
- King v Brandywine Reinsurance Company [2005] EWCA Civ 235 This appeal concerned whether Exxon’s settlements and clean-up costs arising from the Exxon Valdez spill were recoverable under the Global Corporate Excess (GCE) reinsurance coverage and related retrocessions. The Court concluded that the proper law was New York but, on the true construction of the policies, Section I and Section III(B) of the GCE did not cover pollution clean-up costs and the claimants could not recover; the appeal was dismissed.
- Swiss Reinsurance Company & Ors v United India Insurance Company Ltd [2005] EWHC 237 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether United India Insurance (the cedant) was entitled to a refund of reinsurance premium under a Swiss Re-led reinsurance policy covering Phase II of the Dabhol Power Project after contractors ceased work. The material issue was whether any unearned premium was payable and whether estoppel prevented Swiss Re from denying liability to refund. The court rejected the estoppel argument, held that no refund was due, granted the declarations sought by Swiss Re and dismissed UII's counterclaim.
- AXA General Insurance Ltd. v Gottlieb & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 112 This case concerns AXA's claims to recover insurance payments after Mrs Gottlieb was found to have committed fraud in relation to two of several claims under a household buildings policy. The central issue was whether a fraudulent claim causes forfeiture of the whole claim, including interim payments made before the fraud, and whether sums paid on unrelated, non-fraudulent claims were recoverable. The court held that the common law rule forfeits the whole claim to which the fraud relates and that interim payments on that fraudulent claim are recoverable; the appeals were dismissed.
- Freakley & Ors v Centre Reinsurance International Company & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 115 This case concerns disputes in the administration of T&N arising from an asbestos liability policy and its reinsurance, principally whether the reinsurers were entitled to handle asbestos claims, whether they were entitled to reimbursement from T&N for costs of handling claims, and the priority of any such reimbursement. The judge below held that the reinsurers were entitled to handle claims and to reimbursement, but rejected their contention that reimbursement ranked as an administration expense. On appeal the Court of Appeal resolved issue 14 as set out in its judgment, awarded the respondents 85% of the costs of the appeals with a payment on account, varied the lower court's order to require the administrators to pay 65% of the reinsurers' costs below, and refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
- Allianz Marine Aviation (France) v GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd. London & Anor [2005] EWHC 101 (Comm) This case concerns how a $5,000,000 excess in an excess-of-loss hull & machinery reinsurance contract should be applied to a claim arising from damage to the vessel "Treasure Bay". The material issue was whether the excess is deducted from the original settlement amount or from the cedant's (Allianz's) reinsured share. The court held that the excess is to be applied to the original values/settlement (not to the cedant's share) and gave judgment for Allianz.
- Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc & Ors [2005] EWHC 5 (QB) This was a liability judgment arising from an assault by a door steward employed by ASE at a Luminar nightclub, giving rise to claims against ASE and Luminar and issues about insurance coverage. The material issue addressed was whether the policy word "accidental" should be assessed from the assured's perspective or the perpetrator's perspective. The court held that "accidental" is to be construed from the assured's perspective and, on that basis, ASE's liability as fixed by default judgment falls within the policy cover so that the claimant is entitled to the declarations sought.
- Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc & Ors This judgment concerns a claim by David Hawley for injuries inflicted when a door steward, Geoffrey Warren, employed by ASE and working at a Luminar venue, struck him. The material issue was whether ASE’s public liability insurance covered liability for the deliberate assault given the policy’s requirement of “accidental” bodily injury. The judge held that “accidental” is properly construed from the assured’s (ASE’s) perspective and that, on the conceded facts, ASE’s liability fell within the policy cover, entitling the claimant to the declarations sought.
- Interface Properties Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1687 This is an appeal by Interface Properties Ltd against a county court order dismissing its claim that Eagle Star Insurance refused to indemnify it for the theft of a Mercedes and the related declarations of ownership. The insurers pleaded that the vehicle had not been genuinely transferred to the claimant and raised allegations amounting to fraud; the Court of Appeal concluded those findings were not displaced on appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court noted one of the recorder’s adverse findings may have been unfair but held that it did not vitiate the overall decision.
- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada & Ors v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co [2004] EWCA Civ 1660 This appeal concerned whether a later arbitration (Lincoln) was bound by a prior arbitration's (Cigna) finding that certain reinsurance covered the Unicover book, for the purpose of deciding recovery under a separate reinsurance. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier tribunal's private opinion could not be treated as conclusively binding on third parties in the subsequent arbitration and allowed the appeal. The court ordered respondents to pay the appellants' costs and refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
- Whitlam v Andrew Hazel for Lloyds Syndicate 260 (t/a K6M Motor Policies At Lloyds) [2004] EWCA Civ 1600 This appeal concerns whether the insurer could avoid a motor policy for innocent non-disclosure by the insured of material facts, specifically that he was a trainee golf professional rather than merely a shop assistant. The Court of Appeal upheld the insurer's right to avoid the policy on that ground but allowed the appeal only to discharge the separate declaration about use of the vehicle to travel to a place of work other than his permanent place of work. Overall the main appeal was otherwise dismissed.
- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v Retail Brand Alliance Inc [2004] EWHC 2139 (Comm) This case concerned whether English proceedings brought by RSA under a Master Policy should be stayed because New York was the natural forum, given related New York proceedings under a Local Policy and the locus of the insured loss (the World Trade Centre attack). The material issue was forum conveniens and whether English jurisdiction was sufficiently important to resist a stay. The court concluded New York was the natural forum and granted Retail Brand's stay application.
- The Society of Lloyd's v Elizabeth Mary Levy & Ors [2004] EWHC 1860 (Comm) This is an action by Lloyd's for sums said to be due under premiums assigned to it by Equitas, brought against out-of-jurisdiction Names (the Levys and the Johnsons). The principal contested points included alleged non-registration of the security, stamp-duty and EU Directive issues, disclosure, and quantum; the court refused permission to amend pleadings and found no arguable defence to Lloyd's claims. Judgment was entered for Lloyd's on their claims.
- IF P & C Insurance Ltd (Publ) v Silversea Cruises Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 769 This appeal concerns an insurance claim by Silversea under a "Loss of Income and Extraordinary Costs" policy arising from the commercial impact of the 11 September 2001 attacks, focusing on whether specified policy perils (notably parts of subparagraphs [5] and [7] of cover Ai) and the incorporated Norwegian Plan provisions provided cover for the loss of income. The supplied text sets out the policy wording, the incorporation of chapter 16 of the 1996 Norwegian Plan, and the factual background of Silversea's fleet. The supplied extract does not include the court's decision or the trial or appellate outcome.
- Heath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 792 This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction in a dispute about unpaid reinsurance premium relating to an extension for the dredger ICOA. The material issue was whether the claim for premium was time barred; the court held the cause of action in respect of the July–December 1996 extension accrued within six years of issue because the reinsurance premium was contractually payable within 90 days of attachment. The appeals were dismissed.
- Ramco (UK) Ltd. v International Insurance Company of Hanover [2004] EWCA Civ 675 This appeal concerned construction of an "all-risks" policy wording which covered "property ... the property of the Insured or held by the Insured in trust for which the Insured is responsible", and whether that wording limited cover of goods held by a bailee to those losses for which the bailee was liable to the owner. The judge had held for the insurers on that point, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
- Paul Toomey Of Syndicate 2021 v Banco Vitalicio De Espana SA De Seguros Y Reasseguros [2004] EWCA Civ 622 This dispute arose from reinsurance of a contingency policy insuring Atlético de Madrid against relegation-related loss of contracted television rights; the central issue focused on the nature of the obligations between the insured and the contracting broadcaster and the reinsurers' refusal to pay and claim for rescission. The trial judge declared the reinsurers discharged from liability, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeal.
- Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. v Cresswell & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 602 This appeal concerned the construction of a substituted "Claims Co-operation Clause" in reinsurance policies and whether compliance with its sub-paragraph (b) (giving underwriters control of negotiations and settlements) was a condition precedent to reinsurers' liability or derogated from the printed "follow the settlements" clause. Longmore LJ held that the typed consent-to-settlement provision must be given effect where inconsistent with the earlier printed "follow the settlements" clause, that sub-paragraph (b) does not operate where settlement is within the primary limits, and that the judge's earlier binary answers to the preliminary issues should be set aside and rephrased.
- King & Ors v Brandywine Reinsurance Co (UK) Ltd. [2004] EWHC 1033 (Comm) This case concerns reinsurance claims arising from the Exxon Valdez oil spill and whether clean-up expenses and related liabilities were covered under parts of the primary GCE insurance (Sections I, IIIA and IIIB) and by the Seepage, Pollution and Contamination exclusion in outward retrocessions. The court held that oil pollution clean-up expenses were not covered under Section I (and in any event barred there by the "Notwithstanding" clauses) but were within Section IIIA; there was no cover under Section IIIB or its Endorsement No.2, and the Seepage/Pollution exclusion in the retrocessions (except for some Lloyd's contracts) would in any event exclude the defendants' liability. The judge also recorded how the outcome would differ if New York law applied to some issues, but still concluded the retrocessions were excluded by the Seepage/Pollution clause.
- Mayban General Assurance BHD & Ors v Alstom Power Plants Ltd & Anor This case concerns damage to a transformer shipped from the UK to Malaysia and an insurers' denial of liability on the ground of inherent vice. The material issue was whether the loss was caused by an accidental peril of the voyage or by the transformer's inability to withstand ordinary sea transit conditions. The judge found the damage resulted from the transformer's inability to withstand ordinary voyage conditions and held the insurers were not liable.
- BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd v Kvaerner Oilfield Products Ltd & Anor [2004] EWHC 999 (Comm) This dispute concerned alleged defects in subsea control modules, directional control valves and umbilicals supplied for BP's Schiehallion/Loyal fields and whether the contractors were entitled to the benefit of BP's Construction All Risks (CAR) insurance. The court addressed construction of the contracts' insurance clauses (notably clause 10.5) and concluded BP was obliged to provide the contractors with CAR cover co-extensive with that available to BP. The court held that both Kvaerner and CCL were entitled to the benefit of BP's policy to that extent.
- Munchener Ruckversicherungs Gesellschaft (t/a Munich Reinsurance Company) v Commonwealth Insurance Company [2004] EWHC 914 (Comm) This was an application to set aside an order permitting Munich Re to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on Commonwealth in Canada arising from a retrocession contract. The principal issue was whether the retrocession contained a service-of-suit clause directing service in Canada or a USA submission to jurisdiction, and whether England was the more convenient forum given potential third‑party involvement (THB). The judge concluded the clause operated for service in Canada and dismissed the application, finding England the more convenient and appropriate forum.
- Bramhill & Anor v Edwards & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 403 This is an appeal by buyers of a US-imported motor-home who alleged misrepresentation and breach of the implied term of satisfactory quality because the vehicle was 102 inches wide, exceeding the UK regulatory 100-inch limit. The Court of Appeal dismissed the buyers' appeal and allowed the sellers' cross-appeal, concluding the buyers had delayed and effectively affirmed the contract and that there was insufficient evidence to establish any diminution in value or loss at the relevant date.
- Kastor Navigation Co Ltd & Anor v AXA Global Risks (UK) Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 277 This appeal arose from the loss by sinking of the vessel Kastor Too after an engine-room fire; the central issue was causation and whether the vessel was an actual total loss or a constructive total loss. The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' main appeal on the constructive total loss point, allowed the owners' cross-appeal on costs, and made consequential costs orders (including an order as to the appeal costs).
- Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada & Ors [2004] EWHC 343 (Comm) This case concerns an appeal by Lincoln against part of an interim arbitration award that found Sun/Phoenix entitled to indemnity under certain Unicover whole account reinsurances and raised whether the Lincoln arbitrators could depart from findings in an earlier Cigna arbitration and whether Cigna's coverage was partly written and partly oral. The court rejected the complaint that the Lincoln arbitrators committed a serious irregularity by accepting counsel's assurance about disclosure from the Cigna arbitration and indicated the arbitrators' conclusions on coverage were open to them in law. The appeal grounds identified in the supplied text were therefore not upheld on the disclosed material.
- Malekout v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 192 This appeal concerned construction of clause 13(1)'s definition of "disablement" in a personal retirement plan and whether the appellant's total incapacity fell within it. The Court of Appeal concluded that "disablement" is satisfied by a condition that "first came into existence after the date" of the policy (i.e. post-contract conditions) and allowed the appeal, granting the declarations and costs as set out.
- Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Games Video Co (GVC) SA [2004] EWHC 15 (Comm) This case concerns an insured vessel that was damaged by an explosion and a dispute whether the insurer must indemnify the assureds for the loss. The central issue was whether the assureds used fraudulent devices in presenting the claim (including providing documents the judge found deceitful) such that the insurer was discharged from liability. The judge found the assureds had used fraudulent devices and dismissed their claim, granting the insurer the declarations sought.
- Murphy (a child) v Holland & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1862 This case concerns whether a joint life insurance policy held by Mr and Mrs Murphy was "joint property" for the purposes of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 so that the deceased's severable share could be treated as part of his net estate. On the agreed facts the trial judge held the benefit of the policy was jointly held and within the ambit of the Act, and decided the preliminary issue in the claimant's favour. The supplied judgment extract omits the middle of the reasons and does not include a clear final appellate determination.
- Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1834 This is an inter-insurer dispute where Drake paid a third-party claim by an insured driver and sought a rateable contribution from Provident, which had purported to avoid its policy for non-disclosure. The court allowed Drake's appeal, holding (on the material as supplied) that Provident was not entitled to avoid the policy and that Drake's payment was not a voluntary payment such as to bar recovery.
- Direct Travel Insurance v McGewn [2003] EWCA Civ 1606 This appeal concerned whether a single-trip holiday insurance "personal accident" clause paying £50,000 for "a permanent physical disability which prevents you from doing all your usual activities" was triggered by the insured's loss of particular activities after a road accident. The Court of Appeal held that the clause requires an inability to pursue the insured's full range of significant non-working activities taken in the round, not merely inability to carry out any one activity, and quashed the county court's £50,000 award, ordering a rehearing with evidence on the range and significance of activities lost.
- Sinclair Roche & Temperley (a firm) v Somatra Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1474 This judgment concerns Somatra Ltd's claim against its solicitors Sinclair Roche & Temperley (SRT) for negligent conduct in pursuing an insurance claim after the loss of the VLCC ABT Summer. The judge found multiple breaches of duty by SRT, concluded Somatra would have recovered at trial, but awarded damages equal to the difference between the two‑thirds settlement actually achieved and 75% of the claim (the judge's estimate of the likely settlement but for the breaches). SRT appealed that assessment; the appeal was before the Court of Appeal as recorded here.
- Charman v New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1372 This appeal concerned a premium review clause in a three‑year reinsurance slip (1997–1999) and whether the reinsurer validly exercised that clause so as to affect the premium (and thus the continuation) of the third year. The Court of Appeal allowed the Syndicates' appeal, holding that the reinsurance subsisted for the full three years and that New Cap Re was not entitled to nominate a new increased premium for the second or third years. The court ordered indemnity for the Syndicates for losses in the stated years and provided directions for determining third‑year claims.
- Ramco (UK) Ltd. & Ors v International Insurance Company of Hannover Ltd. & Anor [2003] EWHC 2360 (Comm) This dispute concerned whether an "All Risks" material damage policy covered goods on the insureds' premises that were owned by third parties and bailed to the insureds. The court decided that Section 1 responds to such bailed stock only where the insured is liable to a third party for the loss or damage, and that the policy responds to the full value of the stock or the amount of the damage (subject to the insurers' option to reinstate or replace). The insurers did not dispute liability for property owned by the claimants.
- Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. v J.N. Cresswell & Ors [2003] EWHC 2224 (Comm) This was a reinsurance dispute where Eagle Star sought indemnity from its reinsurers for a settlement with Varian and related defence costs; the reinsurers contended that a Claims Co-operation clause (subparagraph (b)) gave them control of negotiations and was a condition precedent to liability. The judge held that subparagraph (b) conferred a permissive right on the reinsurers to take control but did not impose an obligation on them and therefore was not a condition precedent to their liability; the judgment also noted that recovery of legal costs depended on the Apportionment of Costs provision and possible issues such as estoppel. The court directed the parties to record an order reflecting the judgment.
- Graham v Entec Europe Ltd. (t/a Exploration Associates) [2003] EWCA Civ 1177 This dispute concerned whether a negligence claim about subsidence and remedial works was time-barred, and in particular whether knowledge held by an insurer’s loss adjuster could be attributed for limitation purposes. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s factual finding that the loss adjuster had the requisite knowledge by late 1996/July 1997 and dismissed the appeal as the claim was out of time.
- Mahonia Ltd. v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2003] EWHC 1927 (Comm) This dispute concerned a beneficiary's claim for payment under a documentary letter of credit issued for Enron-related transactions and the issuing bank's defence that the letter was tainted by illegality. The material issue was whether illegality in the underlying transactions can bar enforcement of a documentary credit and whether that question could be resolved on strike-out/summary judgment. The court dismissed the claimant's applications to strike out the illegality defence and for summary judgment, finding there was at least a realistic/prospective case that illegality might prevent enforcement and that the matter required determination on trial evidence.
- European International Reinsurance Company Ltd v Curzon Insurance Ltd & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1074 This appeal concerned applications to set aside permission to join three Part 20 defendants (SRS, SOL and Marsh) in related reinsurance proceedings; the Court of Appeal upheld Gross J's decision to refuse the applications and dismissed the appeal, finding that Curzon had an arguable claim against each proposed Part 20 defendant based on alleged voluntary assumption of responsibility in the placing of reinsurance. The material issue was whether the pleadings disclosed a legitimately arguable case that the brokers had assumed duties of skill and care such that they could properly be joined. Outcome: appeal dismissed; permission to join was not set aside.
- Navigators Insurance Company & Ors v Atlantic Methanol Production Company Llc [2003] EWHC 1706 (Comm) This case concerns underwriters seeking declaratory relief that they avoided, or are not liable under, a project insurance policy following a plant shutdown and a US$9,394,426.34 claim. The material issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried and whether England was the clearly appropriate forum for trial. The court concluded the centre of gravity of the dispute and the progress of related Texas proceedings supported setting aside service out to England and declined to retain jurisdiction.
- Peoples' Insurance Company of China & Anor v Vysanthi Shipping Co Ltd This commercial dispute concerned competing outcomes from a London arbitration and proceedings in the Ningbo Maritime Court arising from salvage/general average after a grounding. The material issue was whether the English court should enforce the earlier arbitration award and recognise the later Chinese judgment; the judge held the earlier arbitration award prevailed, granted leave to enforce that award and gave summary judgment dismissing the claim for recognition of the Ningbo judgment.
- Hyett v Stanley & Ors This appeal concerned whether Lynette Hyett had a beneficial half-share of Whitsun Brook Farm after the death of Robert Freeman, and whether she was entitled to most of the proceeds of an RSA life policy. The Court of Appeal allowed Hyett’s appeal only on the farm ownership point (making a declaration in her favour) but dismissed her appeal in relation to the RSA policy, leaving the bulk of that policy’s proceeds to discharge the mortgage and permitting Hyett to retain a small surplus.
- Toomey v Banco Vitalicio De Espana SA De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2003] EWHC 1102 (Comm) This case concerns facultative reinsurance placed by London-market reinsurers of Vitalicio for Atletico Madrid’s 1999/2000-season football risks, and whether Vitalicio misdescribed the underlying insurance on the reinsurance slip. The court held that the slip’s description of the underlying cover (notably the element as to the amount payable) formed a term of the reinsurance and, construed as a warranty, Vitalicio had breached it. The claimant reinsurers succeeded and Vitalicio’s counterclaim failed.
- Scott v Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 688 This appeal concerned whether the destruction of a British Airways Boeing 747 in Kuwait (destroyed in Feb 1991) should be aggregated with losses of Kuwait Airways aircraft and spares taken by Iraq on 2 Aug 1990, under a reinsurance clause covering "each and every loss or series of losses arising from one event." The central issue was whether the BA loss "arose from" the same event as the KAC losses. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the BA loss was not sufficiently causally linked to the invasion/capture event that caused the KAC losses and so should not be aggregated with them.
- McCarroll v Statham Gill Davies (a firm) [2003] EWCA Civ 425 This case concerns a negligence claim by a former member of the band Oasis against the solicitors who negotiated the band's recording agreement, focusing on whether the claim was time‑barred under the Limitation Act. The material issue was when the cause of action accrued and whether the appellant knew the "basic set of essential facts" before the limitation period expired. The court upheld summary judgment for the respondents, concluding the appellant had the requisite knowledge in time for the limitation defence to succeed.
- Bankers Insurance Company Ltd. v South & Anor [2003] EWHC 380 (QB) This was a declaration claim by insurer Bankers that it was not liable to indemnify Mr South for a 1997 jet-ski accident which resulted in a third party claim by Mr Gardner. The principal factual and legal focus was Mr South’s failure to notify the insurer or make a timely claim (breaches of policy conditions), and the court found the prolonged delay and lack of response were manifestly serious and prejudicial to Bankers. The judge concluded the insurer could rely on those breaches and the claim by Bankers succeeded.
- Bankers Insurance Company Ltd. v South & Anor This is an insurer (Bankers) seeking a declaration that it need not indemnify Mr South in respect of a 1997 jet-ski accident in Cyprus brought by Mr Gardner. The material issue was whether Mr South’s failure to notify the insurer and to make timely steps to pursue a claim (breaches of conditions (d) and (e)) had serious consequences for Bankers. The judge found the breaches were manifestly serious, inferred an intention not to claim, rejected waiver/estoppel, and held the insurer’s claim should succeed.
- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 283 This appeal concerned whether the parties' reinsurance contract included a concluded arbitration agreement, affecting CNA's application for a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996. The material issue was whether unsigned negotiated treaty terms containing an arbitration clause had been adopted so as to form part of the contract. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the judge that no arbitration agreement had been concluded and the stay should be refused.
- European International Reinsurance Company Ltd v Curzon Insurance Ltd & Ors [2003] EWHC 321 (Comm) This case concerned an application by three Part 20 defendants (SRS, SOL and Marsh) to set aside their joinder to Curzon’s contribution/indemnity claim arising from EIR’s attempt to avoid a reinsurance contract for non-disclosure. The material issue was whether Curzon’s Part 20 claim had no real prospect of success (in particular whether the Part 20 defendants had “assumed responsibility” or otherwise owed relevant duties) or was bound to fail as a matter of law. The judge held that, on the pleaded facts taken as Curzon’s best case and given uncertainty about the scope of the letter of engagement, the claims were not shown to have no real prospect of success and the application to set aside joinder was dismissed.
- GE Reinsurance Corporation & Ors v New Hampshire Insurance Company & Anor [2003] EWHC 302 (Comm) This case concerned reinsurance of a US$100m film-finance note facility and disputes whether four reinsurers were liable under a reinsurance slip which contained (inter alia) a provision about maintaining employment contracts for a named executive ("the Stabler Wording") and a retention provision. The court concluded that the reinsurers were under no liability to New Hampshire under the reinsurance slip. New Hampshire was entitled to recover damages from its broker Willis for failing to obtain reinsurance co-extensive with New Hampshire's liability, without any reduction for contributory negligence.
- Brotherton & Ors v Aseguradora Colseguros S.A. & Anor [2003] EWHC 335 (Comm) This was a dispute about reinsurance of a Colombian bank’s bond and whether the reinsurers were entitled to avoid the contracts for non‑disclosure of press allegations of misconduct by the bank’s president. The defendants sought to prove at trial that the allegations were unfounded to show they were not material. The judge held that whether the allegations were later shown to be false does not render them immaterial and struck out the pleaded defence point that evidence of the allegations’ falsity should be permitted.
- Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc [2003] EWHC 109 (Comm) This is a dispute between insurers after a 1996 road accident: Drake paid the injured third party under an extension in its policy after Provident purported to avoid the policy for non-disclosure by its insured, Dr Singh. Drake sought contribution from Provident; the court concluded that the equitable doctrine of contribution could not be extended to defeat the position taken by Provident and that the industry "Dual Indemnity Undertaking" was not legally enforceable between the parties. The judgment therefore did not permit Drake to recover contribution from Provident on the basis asserted.
- General Star International Indemnity Ltd. v Stirling Cooke Brown Reinsurance Brokers Ltd & Anor [2003] EWHC 3 (Comm) This dispute concerned jurisdictional conflict arising from Genstar's English claim against SCB and a near-concurrent complaint by SCB in New York relating to reinsurance for the Litto films. The material issue was which court should determine forum and whether an anti-suit injunction should restrain SCB's New York proceedings. The High Court held that England was the natural forum for Genstar's claims and granted an anti-suit injunction restraining SCB from pursuing its New York complaint as vexatious and oppressive.
- Akers & Ors v Motor Insurers' Bureau & Anor This appeal concerned whether the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) was obliged under clause 6(1)(e) of the 1988 Agreement to satisfy a judgment for fatalities caused by an uninsured driver, the issue being whether the deceased passenger knew or ought to have known the car was uninsured. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge applied too stringent a test and, on the evidence before him, reached the view that the deceased had the relevant knowledge (or deliberately avoided inquiry). The court allowed the MIB's appeal, declared the MIB not obliged to satisfy the judgment against the driver, and awarded costs accordingly.
No insurance decisions matched your search.