UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 27 March 2012

Last Updated: 18 April 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the eleventh edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2012.

These updates are aimed at keeping you up to speed and informed of the latest developments in caselaw relevant to your practice. Please follow this link for further details of the following recent cases:

COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, RE

Notification requirements for a Part VII transfer and former policyholders

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/632.html

The FSA agreed certain relaxations of the notification requirements for a Part VII transfer. However, one issue remained: Should individual notice be given not only to the current policyholders of the transferor, but also to certain former policyholders as well? The issue arose because of a Past Business Review ("PBR") which was being conducted into the transferor's business, the outcome of which might affect those former policyholders. The purpose of the PBR was said to be "to identify any customer detriment arising from the effecting or carrying out of the relevant contracts of insurance and to calculate and provide appropriate redress to any customers who suffered loss as a result of [the transferor]'s failings". The FSA believed that notice should be given to the former policyholders, but the transferor and transferee were not prepared to agree to that.

Morgan J considered that there was considerable force in both sides' arguments and his decision required a "balancing exercise". He recognised that if there was a general notification, by advertisement, of the proposed transfer (as required under the regulations), it would be highly unlikely that many, if any, former policyholders would consider that the proposed transfer had anything to do with them (should they even read the advertisement in the first place). Nor were the former policyholders in the same position as trade creditors - because of the intervention of the FSA and the ongoing PBR, there was "unfinished business" and "the former policyholders are like current policyholders in the sense that any liabilities of [the transferor] to former policyholders are being transferred just like the liabilities under current policies".

However, the judge concluded that it was not appropriate for individual notification to be given to the former policyholders. Former policyholders could only begin to see the relevance of the proposed transfer if they were also told about the PBR. However, notice at this stage of the PBR would be "less than helpful" to the former policyholders. There was no certainty yet about the outcome of the PBR and, in the absence of the proposed transfer, notice of it would not otherwise have been given. Furthermore, the former policyholders were unlikely to be financially sophisticated and so were unlikely to point out matters which the independent expert and the FSA might have missed. As a result, the benefit to former policyholders of receiving individual notification would be "insubstantial".

TRAVELERS INSURANCE V ADVANI

Whether insurers entitled to reimbursement of defence costs

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/623.html

Two individuals sued a firm of solicitors and its employee for negligence. Following trial, Hamblen J found that the claim failed (because the individuals had been attempting to pay a bribe). He also found that the employee had been acting outside her employment. An appeal against that finding did not proceed. The insurers of the firm and its employees then sought reimbursement of amounts paid to fund the employee's defence of the action. They relied on a policy clause which provided for reimbursement of monies paid pending dispute resolution "following resolution of any coverage dispute for any amount paid by the Insurer on that Insured's behalf which, on the basis of the resolution of the dispute, the Insurer is not ultimately liable to pay". The policy also provided that the insurer would indemnify each insured against defence costs incurred in defending a claim of dishonesty up until (inter alia) "a court..finding that Insured was in fact guilty of such dishonest...act".

The employee argued that a declaration from the court that the employee had been dishonest was required before the insurers would be entitled to the reimbursement. The judge rejected that argument. Even though Hamblen J had not described the employee's conduct as dishonest "what he found her conduct to have been was plainly dishonest". In any event, the coverage dispute was defined in the pleadings and had now been resolved in the insurers' favour. Accordingly, they were entitled to reimbursement.

WALTER LILLY & ANOR V MACKAY & ANOR

Do documents produced by claims consultants attract legal advice privilege?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2012/649.html

The claimants sought disclosure of certain documents which were produced by, or sent to, the firm of claims consultants retained by the defendants. The defendants claimed that the documents attracted legal advice privilege because the individuals acting on the matter for the claims consultants were qualified lawyers who gave the defendants legal advice. That argument was rejected by Akenhead J.

The Court of Appeal in Prudential v Special Commissioner of Income Tax (see Weekly Update 38/10) confirmed that legal advice privilege applies only to lawyers. Akenhead J said that it was important to examine the nature of the engagement. Here, it was to provide project handling and claims consultancy services. It did not hold itself out as a firm of solicitors and it made no difference that it employed some lawyers - those individuals were not retained as lawyers. In any event, it was not clear, on the facts, that the employees were qualified lawyers. Furthermore, it did not matter that the defendants honestly believed that the employees were lawyers: "The protection of privilege is not intended to extend to the relationship between a person and another who is not in fact a qualified and practising lawyer, save in exceptional circumstances ... here, the Defendants had no good reason to believe that they were employing solicitors or barristers because they were employing [the claims consultancy firm] which does not profess to be offering the services of qualified practising solicitors and barristers".

WESTON V BATES

Service of the claim out of the jurisdiction - is an original claim form required?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/590.html

A claim form was issued on the last day before expiry of the relevant limitation period. It was served within the jurisdiction on the second defendant. The claimant then applied for, and obtained, permission to serve the first defendant out of the jurisdiction, in Monaco. The documents were then sent by email to a local agent who (after finding the first defendant was not home) left them for collection at the town hall. This was a method of service permitted by local law (and so complied with CPR r6.40(3) (c)). The issue in this case was whether an original sealed claim form (or a colour copy of it) should have been served. Instead, the local agent had served a print-out of the (scanned) black and white photocopy of the claim form which had been attached to the email.

The first defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction. Master McCloud held that service had been valid (although she expressed grave doubts as to whether, for service within the jurisdiction, anything less than a sealed copy of the claim form (ie a "first generation copy") would suffice, unless there had been a prior agreement that service could be made by fax or email (of a "second generation copy"- ie one that had "not physically been through the hands of the court staff")). The claimant appealed against that decision.

Tugendhat J has now dismissed that appeal. After reviewing all the relevant provisions of the CPR (and the Queen's Bench Guide which, he noted, does not have the force of law), he concluded that a claim form does not have to have the court's seal affixed to it (nor does there have to be service of a "hard copy" of the claim form) where service is effected under CPR r6.40(3)(c).

However, the judge cautioned that: "Nothing in this judgment should be taken as casting doubt on the desirability of serving proceedings" by service of a copy of the claim form which bears a seal affixed by the court office. This should always be the preferred method of service because it avoids potential delay and waste of costs if the authenticity of the claim form has to be proved otherwise than by means of the seal affixed by the court.

PHAESTOS & ANOR V HO

Court gives directions on electronic disclosure following change of solicitors

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2012/668.html

The claimant applied for extra time for the parties to agree matters relating to electronic disclosure. The following arguments were raised by the claimant:

  1. A change of its solicitors meant that the claimant required additional time. Akenhead J rejected that argument. The indulgence of the court could not be sought where a party, for entirely voluntary reasons and "with their eyes open", decides at a late stage of litigation to change solicitors. In any event, the prior solicitors were still retained and they had detailed knowledge of the disclosure exercise conducted so far.
  2. The disclosure exercise was potentially massive. The judge said that "whilst the disclosure may be massive, nonetheless it is an exercise that must be done and is an exercise which the claimants have been aware for a very long time that they must focus on and provide an appropriate level of disclosure".
  3. Where servers were located in a number of jurisdictions, it was not clear whether the parties had considered the data privacy regimes in those jurisdictions. However, it was held that that was not a good reason for postponing resolution by the court - especially as the claimant's solicitor did not believe that there would be a problem.
  4. It was suggested that certain emails might be located on a server which was not owned by a party to the action. Again, the judge did not believe that that was a valid reason for postponing resolution of the outstanding disclosure issues by the court. He ordered that, if the claimant believed it could not provide disclosure of these emails, it must file a witness statement explaining the situation precisely.

Finally, the judge concluded as follows: "I have been assured now on three occasions by counsel for the claimant that there is no intention, and never has been any intention, on the part of the claimants, and certainly not of solicitors and counsel, to delay and disrupt the timetable and the process. Yet on each of the three occasions, and possibly more, the claimants have sought to do just that". He held that this was therefore a case for indemnity costs.

PHETHEAN-HUBBLE V COLES

Contributory negligence and a 16 year old

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/349.html

The defendant appealed (inter alia) against the judge's finding in relation to contributory negligence in this case. The claimant cyclist was 16 when he was hit by the defendant's car. The judge found the degree of contribution to the collision made by the claimant was 50%. However, section 1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that the damage recoverable shall be reduced "to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable, having regard to the Claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage". The judge considered that at 16 years of age, the claimant did not have the maturity and judgment of an adult, even though he was normally a prudent, careful cyclist. He therefore considered it just and equitable to reduce the claimant's damages only by one third.

The Court of Appeal has now found that the judge had erred in his approach. Neither side was able to find any prior caselaw authority on how to deal with contributory negligence by a young adult of 16. However, the Court of Appeal held that there was "no reason to treat the claimant as if he were anything other than an adult in this respect". Accordingly, it was held that there should be a 50% reduction for contributory negligence.

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.