Insurance Law Monthly

The Law Commission's draft Insurable Interest Bill, published in April 2016, proposes to retain much of the existing legal structure. The proposals would seemingly extend the definition of insurable interest to catch some cases where there are legitimate rights capable of protection by insurance but as yet not recognised by the law. The decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session in Comlex Ltd v Allianz Insurance plc [2016] CSOH 87 is a relatively straightforward case where there was clearly insurable interest, but the judgment is nevertheless a useful illustration of the point that legal or equitable ownership are not the exclusive touchstones of insurable interest.

In AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm) Teare J was asked to determine whether a number of different claims against a firm of lawyers could be characterised as arising from similar acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions for the purposes of limb (iv) of the aggregation provision within the prevailing Solicitors’ Minimum Terms and Conditions (“MTC”). His decision was modified on appeal by the Court of Appeal in AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 367.

Cooke J in ARC Capital Partners Ltd v Brit UW Ltd [2016] EWHC 141 (Comm) discussed the meaning of a number of clauses commonly found in professional indemnity policies, although to date not litigated. Those clauses included a Retroactive Date exclusion and a Continuity of Cover extension.

A professional indemnity policy covers the activities of the assured as defined by the insuring clause. Mace v Justice and Forensic Health Network [2016] NSWSC 803 is one of many authorities discussing the scope of the definition. The context in the present case was a medical malpractice policy.