Insurance Law Monthly

The tricky question in Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP zoo [2023] EWHC 2159 (KB); [2024] Lloyd's Rep IR 1 was whether a claimant whose vehicle was damaged in an accident which was the fault of a third party was entitled to recover credit hire charges in circumstances where the vehicle did not possess a MOT certificate and therefore could not lawfully have been driven.

The decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland Gas Networks plc v QBE UK Ltd [2024] CSOH 15 discusses important issues concerning the operation of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. The case establishes that once the assured's liability has been established by judgment, arbitration award or binding settlement, it cannot be challenged by the insurers and their only defence can be based on policy coverage.

In The Owners - Strata Plan No 91086 v Fairview Architectural Pty Ltd and Another [2023] FCA 814, Wigney J considered whether there had been "physical damage" where a defective product had been installed in buildings. This was not a simple case where the product could be replaced without harm to the buildings. By coincidence, the English High Court had faced pretty much the same question in Atta v HDI Global Specialty SE [2023] EWHC 2028 (KB); [2024] Lloyd's Rep IR Plus 11, previously discussed in Insurance Law Monthly.

In Victorian Workcover Authority v ATS Towing Service Pty Ltd and Others [2023] VCC 2010 the question was whether a liability incurred by the assured was one "in connection with" the insured business as designated in the policy.

The issue before Jackson J in the Federal Court of Australia in Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Infrassure Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1654 was the extent to which a business interruption loss was to be adjusted under the "trends clause" to take account of plans that the assured had for the insured site at the date of the occurrence of the insured peril