Insurance Law Monthly

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Genesis Housing Association Ltd v Liberty Syndicate Management Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1173, upholding the first instance ruling of Akenhead J, is a sharp reminder of two points. First, warranties in the form of basis clauses remain powerful weapons and remove the need of an insurer to rely upon misrepresentation where a false statement has been made by the assured.

In Teal Assurance Co Ltd v W R Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2013] UKSC 57 the Supreme Court considered a dispute relating to professional indemnity insurance where a firm of architects and engineers was insured by a “tower” of insurance contracts.

In Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd [2012] HKCU 1632 Chung J considered a range of issues arising out of a marine policy placed through a broker acting under a binding authority. The case is of interest for the court’s approach to policy interpretation, the duty of utmost good faith and the duties of a broker towards the assured when the broker is at the same time acting as the agent of the insurers for the acceptance of risks under a binder.

The first instance decision of Ms Vivien Rose QC in McManus v European Risk Insurance Co [2013] EWHC 18 (Ch) raised an important point for the professional indemnity market: what is a valid notification of circumstances. The judge’s controversial ruling (in the sense that any ruling would have been controversial) was subject to an appeal, [2013] EWCA Civ 1545, but there was no challenge to the fundamental issue at stake in this case.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd (The Ho Feng 7) [2013] HKCA 14 has reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and has given effect to a marine warranty which at first sight appeared to be inconsistent with the coverage of the policy itself. The trial judge, Chung J held that the warranty had been displaced, but that analysis was reversed by the Court of Appeal.

In Bate v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1687 (Comm) HHJ Mackie QC considered a number of defences raised by property insurers to a fire claim by the assured. The decision makes the general point that work being carried out on neighbouring premises, and business activities being carried on in neighbouring premises, are generally immaterial facts.

In R (on the application of Calland) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2013] EWHC 1327 (Admin), Males J gave some preciously rare judicial comment on aspects of the workings of the Financial Ombudsman Service, including the effect of delay by the party about whom the complaint is made and where an oral hearing would be necessary.

In R (on the application of Calland) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2013] EWHC 1327 (Admin), Males J gave some preciously rare judicial comment on aspects of the workings of the Financial Ombudsman Service, including the effect of delay by the party about whom the complaint is made and where an oral hearing would be necessary.