UK: Discontinued Business Group Update - July 2011

Whether claim by insured under liability policy was time-barred and when did the "claim" arise?

William McIllroy (Swindon) Limited and others v Quinn Insurance Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 825

A third party alleged that the insured had negligently caused a fire which damaged its property. The insured denied liability but notified its public liability insurer. After the third party had written a letter of claim to the insured, the insurer denied liability (on the ground that the insured had breached a policy condition). In due course, a default judgment was entered against the insured and damages were later assessed by the court. After the insured went into voluntary liquidation, the third party claimed under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930.

General Condition 16 of the public liability policy provided as follows: "Any dispute between the Insured and the [Insurer] on our liability in respect of a claim...shall be referred within nine months of the dispute arising to an arbitrator...If the dispute has not been referred to arbitration within the aforesaid nine month period, then the claim shall be deemed to have been abandoned and not recoverable thereafter".

It was common ground at first instance that "claim" in General Condition 16 meant the claim by the insured against the insurer (and not a claim by a third party against the insured). Post Office v Norwich Union [1967] establishes that until the liability of the insured has been established, and the amount of liability has been ascertained, an insured cannot sue its insurer. However, the trial judge held that, as an insured can seek a declaration that the insurer is in breach of a policy obligation, in this case a dispute had arisen as soon as the insured had denied liability. Since that dispute was not referred to arbitration within 9 months, the judge held a claim against the insurer was now timebarred. An appeal was brought and the Court of Appeal has now allowed that appeal.

The Court of Appeal regarded the judge's decision as unfair, since it required the insured to have started arbitration within 9 months of the insurer repudiating liability, even though the insured was denying liability for the fire and its liability to the third party would probably not have been established during the 9-month period. Sir Henry Brooke said that no dispute could have arisen between the insured and the insurer on the insurer's liability unless and until the insured's liability was established. Rix LJ, on the other hand, accepted that it is possible for an insured to sue for a declaration rather than an indemnity but posed the question "have the parties agreed for a 9 month time bar even in a situation where the only dispute which has arisen between the insurer and the insured is the wider dispute about cover under the policy, but where the insured does not as yet have a claim under the policy". He decided that the parties had not agreed that. The clause did not refer to a "potential claim" and he thought that "its talk of "the claim shall have been deemed to have been abandoned"...emphasises to my mind that what the clause is talking about is a claim for an indemnity which an insured is entitled to make against his insurer...In other words, I would regard "claim" in this context as being synonymous with the assertion of a purported cause of action". The insured in this case could not have made a claim under the policy at the time that the insurer repudiated liability. It could only have notified an incident which might give rise to a third party claim.

Reference was made to the case of Walker v Pennine Insurance [1980]. There, Roskill LJ had said that "it seems to me that you can, within the present clause, have a claim by the assured for an indemnity against a potential liability, long in advance of any claim against the assured by a third party being agreed or determined either as to liability or quantum or both". Sir Henry Brook said that Walker (insofar as it might be taken to impugn the authority of Post Office, should not be followed. Rix LJ sought to confine Walker to motor policies only and said that "I am satisfied that in the context of a public liability policy...the essence of a claim under the policy is a request for indemnity on the basis of an established cause of action in respect of a third party claim where liability and quantum have been ascertained".

COMMENT: The Court of Appeal was clearly concerned in this case that the authority of the Post Office case should not be impugned. However, in the Post Office case the insurers had not sought to repudiate liability (they had only argued that the claim under the policy was premature). Given that it is possible for an insured to seek a declaration from the courts that an insurer has wrongfully repudiated liability (and so, for example, require the insurer to meet defence costs even before the insured's liability has been established), it might be argued that the judge at first instance was correct to find that the claim against the insurer had arisen as soon as liability under the policy was repudiated. However, the Court of Appeal was clearly swayed by the argument that it is unfair to require an insured to commence arbitration/litigation against its insurer before it even knows whether it is liable to the third party. It remains to be seen whether the insurer will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

This case will come as a relief to insureds and reinsureds, who have been told by their (re)insurers that they have no liability because of a breach of policy conditions or the duty of utmost good faith, but who have not protected the expiry of the relevant limitation period based on the assumption time runs from such notification rather than the date on which any third party liability may be ascertained.

Rhode Island decision on objections to commutation plan

The Rhode Island Restructuring Act (which became effective in 2004) provides for a scheme whereby a solvent (re)insurance company in run-off may propose a commutation plan, extinguishing its liabilities for past and future claims of its creditors (and thereafter terminating its business).

GTE Re, a Bermudian company, submitted a commutation plan which was approved by insurance division of the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation. GTE Re then filed a petition for implementation of the plan with the court. A Meeting of Creditors was then held and the plan was approved at the meeting.

However, when GTE Re applied for an order confirming the vote and to implement the plan, objections were raised by certain creditors (with whom GTE Re had entered into reinsurance contracts). These objectors did not challenge the plan but, rather, the constitutionality of Restructuring Act itself. It was argued that the Act breached Article 1, section 10, clause 1 of the US Constitution which provides that "no state shall...pass impairing the obligation of contracts" (the "Contract Clause"). The Superior Court of Rhode Island therefore considered the following issues:

  1. Does the state law substantially impair a contractual relationship?

    The court held that it did not in this case. The objectors had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the actuarial-based payout which they are to receive will be less than their recovery if GTE Re remained in run-off. Simply stating that the commutation plan may provide for a different payout than that originally contracted for did not give rise to a "substantial impairment".

    It was also argued that the plan nullified the choice of law provisions contained in the agreements between GTE Re and the objectors. However, the court found that the alteration of the choice of law clause was applicable only to disputes arising out of the plan. Nor did the creditor vote in any way substantially impair the objectors' rights under their agreements with GTE Re.

    Furthermore, any impairment would have been foreseeable. GTE Re was subject to Bermuda's legal and legislative framework and, as early as 1975, Bermuda has had legislation in place providing for schemes of arrangement between Bermudadomiciled companies and their creditors.
  2. If there had have been substantial impairment, was this for a "legitimate public purpose"?

    Mere substantial impairment of a party's contract rights is insufficient to amount to a breach of the Contract Clause. A statute will be deemed constitutional if it is justified by a significant and legitimate purpose. In this case, it was clear that the Restructuring Act was directed at Rhode Island's commercial insurance industry as a whole and that one of the State's motives and objectives was the stimulation and support of Rhode Island's economy. This was a legitimate public purpose. Furthermore, the Restructuring Act was a "reasonable and necessary" means by which to address this legitimate public purpose. Nor did the act breach the principle of due process.

    Accordingly, the act did not breach the Contract Clause and the court held that the plan did not materially adversely affect the interests of the objecting creditors (or of the policyholders).

Dealing with objections to a Part VII transfer

In the recent case of In the Matter of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc , Briggs J gave his reasons for sanctioning a scheme for the transfer of certain insurance business from the UK branch of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc ("Sompo") to Transfercom. Various objections to the scheme had been raised by certain transferring policyholders. Some of the objections had been as follows:

  1. There would be a reduction in the transferring policyholders' security. The judge held that reduction in the confidence level attributable to the transferring policyholders from 99.88% to 99.6% was not material - that was still a satisfactory level of security. Nor was it significant that there was a corresponding increase in the security available to Transfercom's existing policyholders - this had not been achieved at the expense of the transferring policyholders.
  2. The independent expert had relied on research carried out by other qualified professionals. The judge accepted that this was "inevitable and acceptable", especially as he had done so only after his own sufficient review of their work.
  3. It was said that Sompo had no rational commercial purpose for the transfer. The judge rejected this - a desire to achieve finality was in itself a rational commercial purpose.
  4. Objection was made that "since probably a majority in value of the transferring policies were governed by laws other than that of the UK, there was a serious risk that the scheme would be legally ineffective to bring about a substitution of Transfercom for Sompo as reinsurer". Briggs J agreed with Richards J that, provided the evidence showed that a sufficient proportion of transferring policies were governed by English law (and therefore by FSMA), so that the court's sanction of the scheme could not be characterised as acting in vain, then the risk that the validity of the transfer of policies governed by non-English law might be open to question, was not a persuasive reason to refuse sanction. This was subject, though, to the independent expert confirming (as he did) that there was no unacceptable level of uncertainty or unfairness.

Presidency Compromise Text on the proposed Omnibus II Directive

On 24 June 2011 and 21 June 2011, the Council of the European Union published compromise texts on the Omnibus II directive.

The proposals include various changes to the provisions relating to Solvency II, the most significant of which is to delay implementation of the new regime. The text requires member states to transpose the Directive into national law by 31 March 2013, and to apply the provisions from 1 January 2014. Supervisory authorities must however require firms to provide an implementation plan by 1 July 2013 providing evidence of the progress towards implementation of Solvency II.

The text also amends the scope of Solvency II, excluding Insurers or reinsurers who are in run-off by 1January 2014 where:

  1. The relevant supervisory authority is satisfied that the undertaking will terminate its activity within 3 years of the 1 January 2014 implementation date; or
  2. The undertaking is subject to reorganisation measures and an administrator has been appointed;

provided the undertaking is not part of a group in which other group undertakings are not in run-off.

Undertakings falling within a) will become subject to Solvency II from 3 years after the 1 January 2014 implementation date if they have not terminated their activity by that time. Those falling within b) will become subject to the requirements from 5 years after the implementation date. In either case, the undertaking must provide its supervisory authority with an annual report on progress towards terminating its activity, and if the authority is not satisfied with the progress, the undertaking may become subject to the requirements earlier.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.