- Home/Publications/Insurance Law Monthly
Professional indemnity insurance: aggregation
In AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP and Others [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”). The decision is considered by David Turner QC of 4 New Square.
Online Published Date:
15 January 2016
Appeared in issue:
-
Subrogation: allocation of subrogation recoveries
The principle of subrogation operates to remove the possibility of an assured receiving more than an indemnity from a combination of insurance policy payments and sums recovered from a third party. However, the assured is entitled to an indemnity for uninsured losses from any third party recovery. In Small Business Consortium Lloyd’s Consortium No 9056 v Angas Securities Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1511, a decision of Ball J in the New South Wales Supreme Court, it was held that the ordinary rule had been reversed by the wording of the policy, and that the assured had to account to the insurers from the sums received from a third party for the amount of their payment, even though the assured was left with uninsured loss.
Online Published Date:
18 January 2016
Appeared in issue:
Vol 28 No 01 - 01 January 2016
Property insurance: measure of indemnity
The decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Medical Assurance Society New Zealand Ltd v East [2015] NZCA 250, reversing in part the decision of Whata J in the High Court [2014] NZHC 3399, addresses two questions on the measure of indemnity for damage to buildings: does the assured have to incur expenditure before receiving indemnification; and what is the basis for the assessment of the sum payable where the policy provides an indemnity on an “as new” basis?
Online Published Date:
18 January 2016
Appeared in issue:
Vol 28 No 01 - 01 January 2016
Claims: claims management companies
Allpropertyclaims Ltd v Pang; ITC Compliance Ltd (Part 20 Defendant) [2015] EWHC 2198 (QB) was an attempt by the client of a claims management company to withdraw from his payment obligations to the company after a settlement had been negotiated on his behalf. Although the client succeeded, he did so on the technical ground that his copy of the signed agreement had accidentally been taken away from his house by the agent of the company so that he had not been given a copy of his cancellation rights.
Online Published Date:
18 January 2016
Appeared in issue:
Vol 28 No 01 - 01 January 2016
Co-insurance: the nature of composite policies
Co-insurance policies covering the different interests of a number of people are known as “composite”, and are generally taken to mean that each policyholder has a distinct agreement with the insurer. In New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Incorporated and Another [2015] NZSC 59 the Supreme Court of New Zealand was required to consider whether that analysis was correct or whether there was an alternative possibility that a composite policy contained joint obligations.
Online Published Date:
18 January 2016
Appeared in issue:
Vol 28 No 01 - 01 January 2016