Insurance Law Monthly

The Institute War Clauses for Hulls provide coverage for seizure, but contain a series of exceptions. One which has been litigated a number of times in recent years is that in clause 4.1.5, namely “arrest restraint detainment confiscation or expropriation under quarantine regulations or by reason of infringement of any customs or trading regulations”.

The most difficult of the rules is, however, that which says that the broker acts as the agent of the assured in placing insurance but is remunerated by the insurer for finding the business. The rule has raised eyebrows but remains intact, and..

In Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, the Court of Appeal held that a parent company owed a duty of care to an employee who contracted asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos when employed by a subsidiary. The decision is discussed by Nicola Shaldon of 4 New Square.

The decision of Blair J in Elafonissos Fishing and Shipping Co v Aigaion Insurance Co SA (The Agios Spyridon) [2012] EWHC 1512 (Comm) raised a couple of short points on the burden of proving breach of warranty and on the proper interpretation of a warranty.

In Clothing Management Technology Ltd v Beazley Solutions Ltd [2012] EWHC 727 (QB) HHJ Mackie QC was faced with a variety of issues of marine insurance law, rather curiously involving a non-marine risk but written in marine form. The case is analysed by Tom Asquith of Four New Square.