UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 13 March 2012

Last Updated: 21 March 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

British Waterways v RSA

Whether loss fell within the terms of a motor insurance policy and the meaning of "arising out of" in the context of a policy exclusion

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/460. Html

A father and son were killed when the tractor which they were reversing along a towpath toppled into a canal. They were independent contractors retained by the claimant to carry out hedge-cutting services. The tractor belonged to the claimant. The claimant pleaded guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and thereafter reached a settlement with the the deceased men's estates. They sought to recover the amount of that settlement (and other amounts) from the defendant insurers. Burton J held as follows:

(1) On the facts, the claimant had been liable to the deceased both under common law and statute (the Provision and Use of work Equipment Regulations 1998).

(2) The policy provided cover for "legal liability incurred for damages...in respect of accidental death of...any person...in connection with the use of the Insured Vehicle". The judge rejected the argument that the policy, like the Road Traffic Act 1988, should be construed as excluding the driver or user of the vehicle. Furthermore the clause should not be construed so that cover was for "legal liability...in connection with the use" of the vehicle. Instead it meant that liability had to have been incurred for damages in respect of the accidental deaths of the two men in connection with such use.

(3) The judge then considered the scope of the following policy exclusion: "The insurers shall not be liable for liability arising out of... the operation as a tool of the insured vehicle". On the facts, the judge was not satisfied that the tractor was being used to cut hedges at the time of the accident. The key issue, though, was whether the deaths (rather than the liability) "arose out of" the operation of the tractor as a tool.

Burton J conducted a review of the meaning of "arising out of" in an insurance context. He found that there have been a series of conflicting decisions, with some cases interpreting "arising out of" as meaning the proximate cause and some applying a wider test which contemplates more remote consequences than those envisaged by the words "caused by". Does a stricter test apply in the context of a policy exclusion? Burton J concluded that it does: "I have the inevitable feeling that a court may in fact have a different approach to concluding whether there is cover for an event from where the court is being asked to conclude that an insurer can exclude cover, even though the words the court is considering may be identical". He concluded that in this case, the exclusion did not apply because the proximate cause of the tractor toppling into the canal was its being reversed too close to the bank and not the use of the tractor to cut hedges.

COMMENT: Weekly Update 23/11 referred to the case of Beazley v Travelers, in which Clarke J found that, in the context of the policy in that case, "arising out of" did not dictate a proximate cause test and instead allowed "a somewhat weaker causal connection". This case, involving an exclusion rather than an aggregation clause, again underlines the importance of considering the meaning of "arising out of" in context. It adopts textbook analysis (and the reasoning in two Scottish cases) to support the view that a more stringent approach is needed where the words are used in a policy exclusion.

Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services

Privy Council determines scope of court order remitting an award to the arbitrators

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2012/6.html

The Court of Appeal of Jamaica allowed an appeal against an award of damages and remitted the matter to the arbitrators "to determine the issue of damages only". The issue in this case was whether that order should be read without any limitation or whether it should take into account the specific issue which the arbitrators had not dealt with in their original award (and in relation to which the appeal had been brought). This was of relevance because the appellant sought to raise two further points on damages and to lead fresh evidence on them.

The power to remit an award, in whole or in part, for reconsideration by the arbitrators under Jamaican law reflects that laid down in section 68(3) of the English Arbitration Act 1996. The Privy Council dismissed the argument that it should consider the meaning of the words used in the order and then resolve any "ambiguities" which emerge from that consideration: "the construction of a judicial order, like any other legal instrument, is a single coherent process". It is always admissible to take into account the reasons for making the order which are given by the court in its judgment: " The reference in the order to "the issue of damages", although necessary, begged the question "Which issue of damages?" The order does not itself answer it. Only extrinsic evidence can do that... it cannot rationally be held inadmissible to construe [the order] by reference to the issues which the remitting court regarded as calling for reconsideration by the arbitrators."

In addition, where the order is given in the context of the judicial supervision of arbitration proceedings, it should not be readily assumed that the court has exceeded the proper limits of its functions (ie by asking the arbitrators to reopen findings where there were no grounds for remission and where the arbitrators had already reached a conclusive decision).

Thus in this case, no new challenges could be raised before the arbitrators when the matter was remitted.

Simon v Helmot (Guernsey)

Privy Council comments on appropriate "discount rate" in a personal injury case

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2012/5.html

The respondent was very seriously injured by the appellant, who admitted liability. The only issue was therefore the appropriate quantum of damages.The Guernsey Court of Appeal substituted a 1% discount rate (applied at first instance) for a discount rate of -1.5% for earnings-related losses and 0.5% for other losses (which increased the total award of damages by about Ł4.5m). The appellant appealed to the Privy Council, challenging that decision.

In reaching its decision, the PC referred to English law for guidance. English law requires that an award of damages take the form of a single lump sum. Accordingly, the award must take account of all likely future loss. However, an adjustment (usually in the form of a discount) must be made to those future losses because the claimant is, in effect, getting funds early and so will have the opportunity (not available normally) to earn income on that lump sum over a period of years. It has been assumed until very recently that the rate of return which the claimant can get on capital will more than offset the effects of inflation on the amount of the award. However, the Court of Appeal had accepted that the adjustment might result in an increase (rather than a discount) if the evidence shows that the rate of inflation will outpace the rate of return in future.

The Privy Council agreed with the Court of Appeal's stance. As Lord Hope put it: "If the evidence shows that inflation will affect different heads of loss in different ways and that the differential is capable of being evaluated, the court should not close its mind to using different rates" and "the use of the word "discount" is not an apt way of describing the exercise. It is, in essence, simply a process of adjustment. And in principle there can be no objection to its operating in the reverse direction if the evidence shows that an adjustment which increases the multiplier is needed to ensure that the lump sum will continue to be large enough to meet losses to be incurred in the future". Nor should the court at first instance have refused to make the adjustment in the absence of a suitable index: "the law has never demanded precision in the assessment of future loss".

Giggs v NGN

Application for relief from sanctions and whether breach of CPR was intentional and serious

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/431.html

After the claimant failed to comply with an order for directions, his claim was automatically struck out. He applied for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.9. One of the circumstances which the court will take into account on such an application is "the extent to which the party in default has complied with other rules etc".

One of the issues in this case was the effect of an agreement between the parties of a general stay regarding service of the defence. This was a breach of CPR r15.5(1) which only allows an extension of up to 28 days. There was also a breach of the requirement under CPR r15.5(2) to notify the court in writing of any extension agreement. The claimant argued that these breaches of the CPR were not deliberate and nor were their consequences extremely serious and accordingly relief from sanctions should not be refused. He also argued that the failure to comply with these rules was a failure by all the parties.

Although it was not necessary for Tugendhat J to deal with the point (because the application failed on another ground), he expressed his view on this argument. These had been serious breaches of the rules (in part because this case involved an interference with the Article 10 right of freedom of expression): "It was clearly an intentional breach (whether or not they overlooked the requirements of CPR Part 15), and the explanation (that this was with a view to settling the action) is not a good one".

Toth v Emirates & Anor

Contractual interpretation and the factual matrix - what is "reasonably available" to the parties?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/517.html

When interpreting a contract, the court is seeking to ascertain the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having "all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties" at the time of the contract (see ICS v West Bromwich [1998]). The respondent sought to argue that certain information was available on the internet to anyone who searched for it. Mann J doubted whether that constituted information which was "reasonably available". He foresaw a number of difficulties - for example, "is something "readily available" if a likely search will throw up the material on, say, the first 10 pages of a Google search, but not if it only comes up on page 15?"

The judge also agreed with the finding in an Australian case that the relevant knowledge was that which was actually known or which was "notorious" in the market. There was no place for constructive knowledge: "It may be that the notion of facts which are readily available can go so far as to cover facts which the reasonable person would suppose would be known to the contracting parties, whether actually known or not, but that is the farthest that the notion should be taken". It would quite wrong though to expect the contracting parties to be under an obligation to obtain knowledge of facts relevant to the construction of their contract.

Natas Group v Styles & Wood

Judge comments on need to adhere to court timetable/excuse for delay

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2012/526. Html

The claimant failed to comply with certain requirements laid down in a Pre-Trial Review. The claimant has been in administration for some time and has retained solicitors on a Conditional Fee Agreement basis (and has also taken out After the Event insurance). When asked to explain its failure to comply, it stated that "whilst the Claimant would like to have several fee earners working on this case, resources are limited". Problems had been compounded by the breakdown of the claimant's solicitors' bulk copier/ scanner and an assistant solicitor contracting chicken pox.

Akenhead J commented that this situation was "wholly unsatisfactory". It is very important that bundles are prepared in sufficient time for both sides to prepare for trial. Furthermore, a claimant who wishes to alter his case must produce a draft amendment in plenty of time before trial, if at all possible. It is not good enough, usually, to indicate in correspondence what the amendments might be. Similarly, witness statements should be prepared as soon as practicable and it is generally not acceptable to indicate broadly what the evidence contained in the statements might be in correspondence.

Nor was the explanation of a lack of resources acceptable: "If parties make arrangements with their solicitors whereby the solicitors are paid on a Conditional Fee basis and with the benefit of ATE Insurance, those solicitors are professionally bound to provide the necessary resources to conduct the case efficiently and fairly". In this case, additional photocopiers, and additional solicitors or counsel, should have been found in order to keep to the court timetable.

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov

Jurisdiction to order surrender to tipstaff/ disclosure and unless orders

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/455. Html

This is the latest in the long-running saga involving the claimant bank's allegations that it has been defrauded out of huge sums by the defendant. The defendant was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment but his current whereabouts are unknown. The bank therefore sought the following further orders from the court:

(1) An order that the defendant surrender to the tipstaff (an officer of the court). Teare J held that he did have jurisdiction to make this order pursuant to section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and pursuant to the court's inherent jurisdiction to issue ancillary orders in support of an earlier order. The order was also essential because it was unlikely that the warrant of committal could be executed (and, indeed, the warrant could definitely not be executed if the defendant has fled abroad).

(2) An order for disclosure of assets. Teare J rejected the argument that the order could not be made because a disclosure order had already been made against the defendant. Nor could it be argued that the order should not be made because the defendant intended to appeal against the finding of contempt.

(3) Unless orders. The judge rejected the argument that there was a risk of injustice if the defendant was not allowed to defend the bank's claim against him. However, the unless orders should not be effective until 7 days from the determination of any appeal which the defendant might bring.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

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