Insurance Law Monthly

The Court of Appeal has, in Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 991, given permission to appeal against the arbitration award of Flaux LJ, sitting as a judge-arbitrator, dealing with the reinsurance consequences of the mesothelioma litigation that has been running for some two decades.

Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, where a vessel has been damaged the amount recoverable by the assured depends upon whether there is a total loss (in which case the assured receives the sum insured) or a partial loss (in which case the assured recovers reasonable repair costs).

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 268 raised a short point on the construction of financial guarantee insurance issued to a firm of solicitors. The question was whether exclusion from cover for breaches of loan agreements also covered a refinancing agreement entered into at a later date.

Under the Consolidated Motor Insurance Directive, European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC, member states are required to take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles is covered by insurance. BTA Baltic Insurance Co AS v Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams AS Case C-648/17 raised the question of whether a vehicle can be regarded as being in use by a passenger.

Some policies require the assured to comply with statutory or regulatory standards. The question is whether such an obligation is absolute or whether it is subject to reasonable care restrictions. The most recent decision, that of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in WFI Insurance v Manitowoq Platinum Pty Ltd v WFI Insurance Ltd [2018] WASCA 89, has rejected the first instance view of Davis DCJ, [2017] WADC 32, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 583, and has concluded that there is no basis for implying a reasonable care restriction where the policy draws a clear distinction between the two concepts.