In Tonicstar Limited v Allianz Insurance PLC & Ors  EWHC 2753 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare confirmed that where an arbitration clause specifies that the arbitrators should have “experience of insurance or reinsurance”, it will not be sufficient for a proposed arbitrator to have experience of insurance or reinsurance law, or having worked as a professional advisor to the insurance or reinsurance industry; the experience must be in the business of insurance or reinsurance itself.
On 11 October 2016 Cooley hosted a breakfast forum on the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee Solvency II Inquiry. We collated the views of those attending the forum and a few others who had not been able to make it and submitted a note of those views to the Committee. The Committee has now published its report (Treasury Committee publishes Report on EU insurance regulation) and we are pleased that the evidence that we submitted has been taken into account in the Committee’s findings and recommendations.
In Timothy Crowden & Carol Crowden v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd (2017) EWHC 2596 (Comm) the claimants suffered significant economic loss after receiving advice from a financial advisor insured by QBE. The claimants were advised to purchase a secure income bond and a growth plan which was linked to Lehman Brothers’ securities. The claimants suffered loss when both the issuer of the bond and Lehman Brothers subsequently went into administration.
The LMA, with the assistance of Cooley, has recently published a bulletin on the issues surrounding applicable law and jurisdiction post-Brexit. The bulletin, and Cooley’s briefing note on the subject, can be accessed here.
Routledge has published “A Practical Guide to the Insurance Act 2015,” co-authored by David Kendall and Harry Wright of 7KBW. The book serves as a thorough introduction to the act, which is the first comprehensive statutory reform of the insurance law of the United Kingdom since the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
Court of Appeal holds that a failure to exercise a “duty to speak” can form the basis of an estoppel
In Ted Baker PLC v (1) AXA Insurance UK PLC (2) Fusion Insurance Services Ltd (3) Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd  EWCA Civ 4097 Ted Baker PLC (TB) suffered significant business interruption losses as a result of goods stolen by a trusted employee. TB subsequently made claims against its insurers for those losses. At first instance, TB’s claim was rejected for two main reasons: first that TB was in breach of a condition precedent, on the basis that it failed to produce certain documentation required by the policy; and second, that the nature of the thefts was such that no single loss exceeded the excess in the policy. Eder J, at first instance, stated that he had not reached these conclusions “with any great enthusiasm”.
In Dalecroft Properties Ltd v Underwriters  EWHC 1263 (Comm), Mr Richard Salter QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) confirmed the defendant insurers’ right to avoid a property insurance policy following various misrepresentations relating to the state of repair of the insured property and non-disclosures relating to acts of vandalism to the property. The property in question was subsequently destroyed by fire and a claim was made by the insured. In response, the insurers purported to avoid the policy. On the facts, it was held that there were material misrepresentations and that material non-disclosures were made, such that the insurers were entitled to avoid the policy.