Insurance Law Monthly

In Byrne v Motor Insurers Bureau [2008] EWCA Civ 574 the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the first instance decision of Mr Justice Flaux, [2007] EWHC 1268 (QB), deciding that the victim of a hit-and-run driver was not bound by the three-year limitation period set out in the Motor Insurers Bureau’s (MIB) Untraced Drivers Agreement 1972, on the basis that it did not comply with the EU’s Second Motor Insurance Directive, Council Directive 88/351/EEC. The decision of Flaux J, which was in respect of preliminary issues on assumed fact, was discussed in the December 2007 issue of Insurance Law Monthly.

Mopani Copper Mines plc v Millenium Underwriting Ltd [2008] EWHC 1331 (Comm), a decision of Mr Justice Christopher Clarke, was, in essence, a factual dispute as to exactly what cover the reinsurers and insurers intended to offer to the assured. The issue was whether the policy covered construction risks or operational risks as well. There is interesting discussion of principles of interpretation, and in particular whether it is permissible to take account of deleted words in determining what the remaining words mean.

In West London Pipeline and Storage Ltd v Total UK Ltd [2008] EWHC 1296 (Comm), Mr Justice David Steel has decided that the court has no jurisdiction to order a party to litigation to disclose insurance information in the course of case management. That ruling is contrary to the earlier decision of Mr Justice Irwin in Harcourt v FEF Griffin [2007] EWHC 1500 QB. The matter has thus become uncertain, but it is nevertheless of major significance to liability insurers.

Markel International Insurance Co v Surety Guarantee Consultants Ltd [2008] EWHC 1135 (Comm), a case coming before Mr Justice Teare, was, for the most part, a case that turned on its facts. An underwriting agency appointed by the claimant insurers wrote business for which it was not authorised. Claims were nevertheless paid, and the claimants sought to recover their losses from the agent and from the various individuals who controlled the agent or who worked for it. Teare J held that that the conduct of the agency had not been authorised and that the losses were recoverable.

Equitas Ltd v Allstate Insurance Company [2008] EWHC 1671 (Comm), a decision of Mr Justice Beatson, is a relatively straightforward application of the principle that the parties to an exclusive jurisdiction clause will be held to their agreement, although the issue arose in a complex reinsurance scenario.