Insurance Law Monthly

The decision of Peter Smith J in Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales [2009] EWHC 2588 (Ch) discusses the circumstances in which a liability insurer is entitled to obtain documents from the assured where the insurer suspects that the assured may have been guilty of fraud. The point arose in the specific context of solicitors’ indemnity insurance, following intervention by the Law Society in the firm’s affairs.

In Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd v Barbon Insurance Group Ltd [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 149 Hamblen J discussed in detail the duties owed by a producing broker to the assured, and the duties owed by a placing broker to the producing broker. The case shows that a producing broker is responsible to the assured for his own defaults and those of the placing broker, and that the producing broker can recover from the placing broker damages representing the contribution of the placing broker to the assured’s loss.

In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd v Smailes [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch) David Richards J discussed the operation of personal injury litigation funding arrangements which involved two separate insurances. The primary question which arose related to the date at which a premium was earned. The court had to decide only whether there was a good arguable case on the various issues, so the c ourt did not reach a concluded view on those issues.

An insurer’s right of subrogation entitles him to rely upon all of the assured’s rights as against the third party in pursuing the claim against the third party. The question in Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2010] EW Misc 1 (EWCC) was whether an assured who had been instructed by insurers to pursue a claim against the third party on the basis of a conditional fee agreement with solicitors had acted reasonably in entering into that agreement so as to render the third party liable by way of costs for the amount of the success fee. HHJ Behrens QC had no doubt that this was the case.