Insurance Law Monthly

In Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd and Others v Tughans [2022] EWHC 2589 (Comm) a challenge to the award of an arbitrator was brought under each of three grounds in the Arbitration Act 1996, namely, want of jurisdiction (section 67), serious irregularity (section 68) and error of law (section 69). The case raised important issues on the interpretation of each of those three sections as well as discussing to date unresolved issues as to the scope of a professional indemnity policy where the claim against the assured is based upon fees earned by it. The arbitration issues are discussed in more detail in our sister publication Arbitration Law Monthly. The focus here is on the points relevant to liability insurance.

The rather strange facts of IAG New Zealand Ltd v Shaw [2022] NZHC 2829 gave rise to an interesting issue of principle: is the seizure of property "physical loss" for the purposes of a policy on goods?

In Brian Leighton (Garages) Ltd v Allianz Insurance plc [2023] EWCA Civ 8 the question was whether an exclusion clause removing cover for loss "caused by pollution or contamination" laid down a causation test so that the focus was on the peril giving rise to pollution or contamination and not the pollution or contamination itself. The Court of Appeal by a majority held this to be the case and found the exclusion not to be applicable. The question was whether summary judgment should be given for the insurers and so the case proceeded on assumed facts.

In SYT Consultants Pte Ltd v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 251, Kwek Mean Luck J in the Singapore High Court considered the effect of a settlement on a liability insurer who had refused indemnity. Departing from English law, the court ruled that a settlement is binding if it is reasonable and it was not necessary for the assured to show that the settlement reflected the actual amount of liability that would have been determined had the claim against the assured gone to trial.