Insurance Law Monthly

The decision of Fogarty J in the High Court of New Zealand, in Body Corporate 83501 v Christchurch City Council [2013] NZHC 2472, raised a short and interesting point on the meaning of “product” for the purposes of product liability and public liability cover.

The decision of Siopis J in the Federal Court of Australia in Alstom Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Co (No 2) [2013] FCA 116, is of much interest. It is one of a relatively small number of marine insurance decisions of the Australian courts, and turns upon the meaning of the Institute Cargo Clauses A as well as the indemnity provisions of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (or rather, the all but identically worded provisions of the Australian measure passed in 1909).

The decision of Flaux J in AstraZeneca Insurance Co Ltd v XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd and Another [2013] EWHC 349 (Comm) discusses a number of important points relating to the obligation of a reinsurer to follow the reinsured’s settlements in circumstances where there is a doubt as to the reinsured’s liability to do so.

The Consolidated Motor Insurance Directive, European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC, requires insurance to be taken out in respect of death, personal injury and property damage arising out of motor vehicle accidents. The Directive allows member states to restrict cover for death or personal injury to €1 million per victim and €5 million per claim, although the UK has never imposed any financial cap in death or personal injury cases.

There has been much litigation on the recoverability of replacement car hire charges for a vehicle damaged in an accident which is the fault of the defendant The cases demonstrate that the claimant can recover only reasonable charges. Singh v Yaqubi [2013] EWCA Civ 23 is a useful reminder that, before the question of reasonableness can arise, the claimant has to show that there was an actual need to hire a replacement vehicle in the first place. Here, the claimant fell at the first stage.

There has been much litigation on the recoverability of replacement car hire charges for a vehicle damaged in an accident which is the fault of the defendant The cases demonstrate that the claimant can recover only reasonable charges. Singh v Yaqubi [2013] EWCA Civ 23 is a useful reminder that, before the question of reasonableness can arise, the claimant has to show that there was an actual need to hire a replacement vehicle in the first place. Here, the claimant fell at the first stage.