Insurance Law Monthly

The first instance decision of Ms Vivien Rose QC in McManus v European Risk Insurance Co [2013] EWHC 18 (Ch) raised an important point for the professional indemnity market: what is a valid notification of circumstances. The judge’s controversial ruling (in the sense that any ruling would have been controversial) was subject to an appeal, [2013] EWCA Civ 1545, but there was no challenge to the fundamental issue at stake in this case.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd (The Ho Feng 7) [2013] HKCA 14 has reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and has given effect to a marine warranty which at first sight appeared to be inconsistent with the coverage of the policy itself. The trial judge, Chung J held that the warranty had been displaced, but that analysis was reversed by the Court of Appeal.

In Bate v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1687 (Comm) HHJ Mackie QC considered a number of defences raised by property insurers to a fire claim by the assured. The decision makes the general point that work being carried out on neighbouring premises, and business activities being carried on in neighbouring premises, are generally immaterial facts.

In R (on the application of Calland) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2013] EWHC 1327 (Admin), Males J gave some preciously rare judicial comment on aspects of the workings of the Financial Ombudsman Service, including the effect of delay by the party about whom the complaint is made and where an oral hearing would be necessary.