Insurance Law Monthly

Yeganeh v Zurich plc [2010] EWHC 1185 (QB) is essentially a case on its facts. It does nevertheless raise some interesting questions as to the burden of proof in a fraudulent claims case and also the consequences of a fraudulent claim by the assured.

Insurance regulation in Hong Kong is under review. On 10 July 2010 the Hong Kong Financial Services and Treasury Bureau published a Consultation Paper and a Frequently Asked Questions handout on its website, and on 19 July 2010 the Legislative Council’s Panel on Financial Affairs published a Discussion Paper. The proposals set out in these documents are discussed by Marie Kwok (Of Counsel) and Wynne Mok (Senior Associate) of Norton Rose.

The Brussels Regulation, European Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, which lays down the rules governing the jurisdiction of courts within the EU over civil and commercial matters, treats insurance matters somewhat differently from the ordinary run of cases. In essence, an assured can only be sued by an insurer in the courts of the place of the assured’s domicile. In Vienna Insurance Group v Bilas Case C-111/09, [2010] EUECJ, the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) has ruled that the right of an assured to rely upon the insurance rules is lost if he submits to the jurisdiction of a court which, but for that submission, would not possess jurisdiction.

The English and Scottish Law Commissions have published their Issues Paper 7, discussing the assured’s continuing duty of utmost good faith. The Issues Paper is perhaps slightly misleading in its title, in that it is for the most part concerned with the complex law surrounding fraudulent claims. The Law Commissions’ tentative conclusions would merely clarify, rather than radically alter, the existing law.