Insurance Law Monthly

Horwood v Land of Leather Ltd [2010] EWHC 546 (Comm) considers the question whether a prohibition of settlements clause applied not just to claims made against an insured but also claims made by the insured. Teare J has concluded that it does have that effect. The case is discussed by Brendan McGurk of 4 New Square.

Keenly awaited for almost a year, the Court of Appeal handed down its mammoth judgment in the asbestos ‘Trigger Litigation’, Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1096, on 8 October 2010. The court decided, two to one, that in mesothelioma cases, ‘injury sustained’ policy wording did not cover liability incurred by an employer at the point of exposure, but instead focused on the point in time at which the unfortunate victim’s tumour develops. The ruling, if it stands, will mean that many mesothelioma victims will not receive compensation for this deadly condition. The decision is discussed by Neil Hext of 4 New Square.

A claimant relying on the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 to enforce a judgment obtained against an insolvent insured can be in no better position against insurers than the insured would have been. In William McIlroy Swindon Ltd v Quinn Insurance Ltd [2010] EWHC 2448 (TCC) this principle, coupled with the court’s construction of a policy time bar upon arbitration, meant that the insured lost his rights against insurers before the third party claimants’ causes of action had even accrued. The case is analysed by Fiona Sinclair of 4 New Square.