Disclosure of insurance information

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.

West London Pipeline: the facts

This case arose out of the massive Buncefield explosion in 2006, which caused severe damage to plant and to the surrounding buildings. The defendants, who were potentially facing liability in the proceedings, with claims totalling some £700m, sought disclosure of the insurance information of a third party, TAV, against whom the defendants had brought a contribution claim. Plainly, it was only worthwhile for the defendants to pursue TAV if TAV had valid and enforceable liability insurance. The defendants asserted that TAV had designed, manufactured and supplied a switch which had failed to operate, resulting in an overflow of fuel and thus the explosion itself. TAV’s defence was that its liability – if any – was, under the parties’ agreement, limited to 5% of the contract price for the supply of the switch. That limitation on liability was disputed on the basis that the exclusion clause was to be judged under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, one element of the test of reasonableness being whether there was available liability insurance.