Insurance Law Monthly

The Institute War Clauses for Hulls provide coverage for seizure, but contain a series of exceptions. One which has been litigated a number of times in recent years is that in clause 4.1.5, namely “arrest restraint detainment confiscation or expropriation under quarantine regulations or by reason of infringement of any customs or trading regulations”.

The most difficult of the rules is, however, that which says that the broker acts as the agent of the assured in placing insurance but is remunerated by the insurer for finding the business. The rule has raised eyebrows but remains intact, and..

In Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, the Court of Appeal held that a parent company owed a duty of care to an employee who contracted asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos when employed by a subsidiary. The decision is discussed by Nicola Shaldon of 4 New Square.

The decision of Blair J in Elafonissos Fishing and Shipping Co v Aigaion Insurance Co SA (The Agios Spyridon) [2012] EWHC 1512 (Comm) raised a couple of short points on the burden of proving breach of warranty and on the proper interpretation of a warranty.

In Standard Life Assurance Ltd v ACE European Group and Ors [2012] EWHC 104 (Comm), Eder J has rejected insurers’ arguments that the action of Standard Life Assurance Ltd (SLAL) in putting money into an investment fund (the value of which had fallen sharply after the collapse of Lehman Brothers) so as to head off claims by investors was not recoverable under the "Mitigation Costs" clause of its professional indemnity insurance policy because the payment was also made to avoid damage to the SLAL brand. The case is discussed by Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC and Clare Dixon of 4 New Square.

In British Waterways v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc [2012] EWHC 460 (Comm) the court was again required to consider, as one of many points argued, the causal requirement imposed by the words “arising from” in an insurance policy, importantly, in a clause excluding liability.

A fraudulent claim by the assured under a policy of insurance allows the insurers to reject the entirety of the claim. The crucial question discussed by the Supreme Court in Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26 is whether the same rule applies where a claim in tort or for breach of contract is fraudulent, in particular where it overstates the claimant’s loss.

The decision of Popplewell J in European Group Ltd and Others v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 1245 (Comm) is a neat illustration of the operation of two principles: that it is possible to establish proximate cause by eliminating other possible causes as long as there is sufficient evidence available; and that inherent vice is no longer to be regarded as an insured peril but rather a restriction on the definition of the insured peril itself.