ZURICH PROFESSIONAL LTD V BROWN

[2010] EWHC 3300 (Ch), Chancery Division, Sir William Blackburne, 16 December 2010

Insurance (professional indemnity) - Whether solicitor covered by liability policy - Meaning of "Private Legal Practice" - Meaning of "in connection with the Firm's practice" - Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930

Mr Brown was admitted as a solicitor in 1971, but lost his practising certificate in 1995 when he became bankrupt. From that point until 2002 he was involved with various activities. He regained his practising certificate in October 2002. From March 2002 Mr Brown practised as a sole practitioner under the name CS Law, and his work was mainly debt collection. CS Law was from October 2002 insured under a professional indemnity policy issued by Zurich, and the policy was thereafter renewed. The policy was in force for the year 1 October 2004 to 30 September 2005. The policy was in claims made form, responding to claims made against the assured during the period of cover. The insuring clause indemnified CS Law "against any Civil Liability to the extent that it arises from Private Legal Practice in connection with the Firm's practice". The expression "Private Legal Practice" was defined in the policy as meaning "the provision of services in private practice as a solicitor". Claims were made against Mr Brown in October 2004 with respect to his conduct in acting as personal representative of two estates from 1999 onwards. Mr Brown notified these claims to Zurich. The claims were not defended and judgment was obtained against him in June 2008. By this time Mr Brown had been struck off the roll of solicitors and had become bankrupt. In the present proceedings the question was whether Mr Brown had a valid claim under the policy which had been transferred to the third parties under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. Sir William Blackburne held that the policy did not respond: Mr Brown had not provided services as a solicitor, and even if that was wrong then those services had not been provided in connection with the firm's legal practice.