Insurance Law Monthly

It is trite law that insurers do not possess subrogation rights against a person who is insured under the policy for the loss in question. That point typically arises where the primary assured, A, agrees with B to insure in their joint names. In that situation it was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 16 that the contract between A and B is to be construed as removing A’s right to claim against B where the loss is one that would have been covered by the policy, so that there are no rights to which the insurers can be subrogated.

To what extent should the governing law in a standard form global insurance policy have an impact upon the question of the appropriate forum for the determination of an insurance dispute? That was essentially the question to which Blair J directed his attention in the matter of AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance SA v Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd [2016] EWHC 904 (Comm). It’s important that practitioners take note of his conclusions. The case is discussed by Paul Fisher, Barrister, 4 New Square Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn.

A bare majority of the Supreme Court has, in Campbell v Gordon (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 38, an appeal from the Scottish courts, affirmed the long-standing ruling in Richardson v Pitt-Stanley [1995] QB 123 that failure by an employer company to obtain the insurance demanded by the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 does not impose any tortious liability upon the individuals in control of the company.

Legg and Others v Sterte Garage Ltd and Another [2016] EWCA Civ 97 raised the question of exactly when an insurer defending a claim is required to pay the costs of the successful claimant. Two separate questions were discussed in Legg: could an order be made against the insurers under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 even though they were not parties to the proceedings; and, if not, did the policy cover the costs of the assured for a successful claim against it so that they could be recovered from the insurers under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930?