UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - Weekly Update - 7 August 2012

Last Updated: 13 August 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

Parker & Anor v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society

Fraudulent claim and joint/composite policy/breach of condition precedent

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/2156. html

Clyde & Co (Roger Doulton and Steven Gilberg) for defendant

It was undisputed that the property owned by the first claimant (Mrs Parker) was substantially damaged by fire in December 2009. She sought to claim under an insurance policy which was taken out in July 2009 in her name (which was then Mrs Cooke). In September 2009, the second claimant (Mr Parker) was added as an assured to the policy. At the time of the fire, the claimants were living together (although not at the property) and they later married in April 2010.

The insurers denied liability on several grounds:

(1) They were entitled to avoid the policy because of two earlier fraudulent claims (in 2002 and 2007). Teare J found, on the facts, that one of the earlier claims was not fraudulent but the other was. However, he also concluded that Mrs Parker was unaware that this dishonest claim had been made. The judge went on to find that the fire had been caused by Mr Parker's wilful misconduct. The insurer did not allege that Mrs Parker was party to any conspiracy to set fire to the property. He therefore held that the insurer was entitled to avoid its obligation to indemnify Mr Parker (and in any event Mr Parker could not recover because of his involvement in the fire). Mr Parker was also liable to pay the insurer the costs of its investigation, plus simple interest and the insurer was entitled to restitution of the sums paid out in respect of earlier fraudulent claim, plus compound interest.

(2) Could the insurer also avoid against Mrs Parker? Although the schedule to the policy described Mr Parker as a "joint policyholder", the judge concluded that this was in fact a composite policy. That was because Mr and Mrs Parker had different interests in relation to the property. She was the owner but the judge said it was difficult to identify any interest at all of his in the property. Accordingly, her right to claim was not affected by Mr Parker's wilful misconduct.

(3) Could the insurer rely on a condition precedent in the policy? It was undisputed that it was a condition precedent that the insured provide all written details and documents which the insurer asked for. During its investigation, the insurer asked for copies of the claimants' bank statements, in order to verify a statement by Mr Parker that he had sufficient money in his bank to pay for the demolition and reconstruction of the property. The claimants refused to comply with this request and instead sent a letter from their bank (which confirmed there were sufficient funds for a rebuild). Teare J held that this was a breach of the condition precedent (since the letter did not confirm how much was actually in the account) and it did not matter that no reliance was placed on this breach until service of the defence – he held that there had been no waiver of the right to rely on the condition precedent.

(4) Could Mrs Parker rely on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and/or the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook ("ICOBS") to avoid the consequences of breaching the condition precedent? Teare J held that she could not. The condition precedent was not an "unfair term" – it is the assured, rather than the insurer, who will be in possession of relevant documents. Furthermore, the insurer had not rejected the claim unreasonably. The breach of the condition precedent was connected to the claim – the bank statements were relevant to the question of motive. Furthermore, the insurer's solicitors had given the insured a "clear warning" as to the consequences of the breach by drawing attention to the relevant term in the policy and by reserving the insurer's rights.

(5) Although unnecessary to decide the point, Teare J added that where (a) the right to subrogation arises on payment; and (b) Mr Parker would be liable to Mrs Parker for the damage which he caused to her property; and (c) the making of a declaration would avoid the need for fresh proceedings to be issued by the insurer against Mr Parker, it would be just and convenient to make a "pre-payment declaration of entitlement to be subrogated".

Finally, although it was unnecessary to decide the amount which the claimants could have claimed, Teare J gave his opinion on this matter. Under the terms of the policy, where the property was not replaced but instead a larger house was built on the site, the measure of indemnity would be the lesser of the cost of replacement and the loss in market value. Here, the reduction in market value was said to be the difference between £1,050,000 (the midway between two valuations) and £625,000 (the value of the plot, taking into account the possibility that a private buyer might be willing to pay more than the "residual valuation"). Since that was less than the agreed costs of reconstruction, that would have been the measure of indemnity.

Simmons v Castle

Court of Appeal confirms 10% increase in general damages for tort claims post-April 2013

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1039.html

In his review of costs in civil cases, Jackson LJ recommended that (to compensate for success fees and after the event insurance premiums becoming irrecoverable), general damages awards for personal injuries and other civil wrongs should be increased by 10%. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which comes into force on 1 April 2013, envisages that the judiciary will give effect to this 10% increase in damages.

Accordingly, in this case the Court of Appeal (which monitors and alters the guideline rates for general damages in tort actions) confirmed that, with effect from 1 April 2013, "the proper level of general damages for (i) pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of personal injury, (ii) nuisance, (iii) defamation and (iv) all other torts which cause suffering, inconvenience or distress to individuals, will be 10% higher than previously. It therefore follows that, if the action now under appeal had been the subject of a judgment after 1 April 2013, the proper award of general damages would be 10% higher than that agreed in this case".

SG v Hewitt

Part 36 offers and whether the offeror should get its costs following acceptance of offer

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1053.html

Clyde & Co for respondent

Where a Part 36 offer is accepted after expiry of the relevant period, CPR r36.10(5) provides that the claimant will be entitled to its costs up to date on which the relevant period expired, and thereafter the offeree must pay the offeror's costs up to the date of acceptance "unless the court orders otherwise".

In this case, the claimant was six years old when he was injured by the defendant's negligence. The defendant made a pre-action Part 36 offer and this was accepted by the claimant some two years later. At first instance the judge approved the settlement and held that the offeree (the claimant) must pay the offeror's costs. The claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal has now allowed that appeal. The parties accepted that the court should take into account the same matters set out in CPR r36.14(4) (which relates to a claimant failing to obtain a judgment more advantageous than a defendant's Part 36 offer). The Court of Appeal rejected other formulations of the test suggested by the parties. In this case, the Court of Appeal accepted that the judge had erred in failing to given any (or enough) weight to the fact that the impact of the claimant's injury could not be properly predicted until the claimant had matured/reached adolescence. The judge had also erred in holding that "the fact that any settlement would require the approval of the court is not of itself a relevant factor". However, the Court of Appeal also cautioned that costs decisions are particularly fact sensitive.

Brit Inns & Ors v BDW Trading

Whether insurer could recover on subrogated claim

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2012/2143.html

Flooding of a restaurant arose out of admittedly defective work carried out by a contractor and its sub-contractors. The insurers of the property paid out under their policy and then brought a subrogated claim against the contractor/ sub-contractors. Coulson J noted that "although not strictly a principle of recovery of damages, it is right to note that where (as here) the scope of the works and their cost were the subject of scrutiny by a third party (the insurers and the loss adjusters acting on their behalf) with a clear incentive to ensure that the sums paid out were kept to a minimum, the court is likely to attach significant weight to the reasonableness of the sums paid out". Despite that general approach, the judge found that in this particular case the insurance claim had been exaggerated and the "sheer scale and range of the problems with the claim as submitted to the insurer" (ie no record was kept of the works actually carried out to repair the property, invoices were inadequate and there was no evidence of payment of those invoices) made it impossible to accept the invoices submitted to the insurer, without more, as support for the subrogated claim. A retrospective valuation was therefore preferred.

The insured also sought to recover for its uninsured losses in this case. One part of this claim was for increased costs of insurance (ie for increased insurance premiums following the flooding). The judge said this claim was "fundamentally flawed" in part because there was no proof that he had had to pay higher premiums, but also because "It presupposes that 3, 4 and 5 years after the base date of 2007, the insurance premiums would not otherwise have gone up at all. Such an assumption is unwarranted. Insurance premiums across the board have gone up over those periods, so that the mere fact that there was an increase in 2010, 2011 and 2012 could not be ascribed to the second inundation in any event".

EnerG v Hormell

Service of documents in accordance with a contractually agreed method

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1059.html

In addition to service under the CPR, it is possible for the parties to agree service in accordance with a contractually agreed method (CPR r6.11). In this case, the parties entered into a contract which provided that, in order to bring a claim for breach of warranty, a notice must first be served and proceedings had to be served within 12 months of that notice. The contract also contained the following provision: "Clause 13.2 Service: Any such notice may be served by delivering it personally or by sending it ..recorded delivery... at or to the address referred to in the agreement."

The claimant believed that there had been a breach of warranty and on 30 March 2010 sent a process server with a notice to the relevant property. He left the notice on a table (where it was opened by the defendant later that same day). The notice was then also sent by recorded delivery on the same day and hence was deemed to have been received (under the agreement) on 1 April 2010. A year later, on 29 March 2011, a process server left a copy of the claim form in the letterbox serving the property. Under CPR r6.14, this was deemed to have been served on 31 March 2011.

At first instance the judge held that service of the claim form was out of time and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal has now considered the following issues:

(1) Was the first notice "personally served"? If it was, the claim form would have been served in time. The Court of Appeal held that it was not. In order to comply with the contractual provision, service had to be made on the recipient personally and the notice could not just be left at the property

(2) Could the claimant rely instead on the second notice, which was validly served? In order to succeed on this argument, the claimant had to prove that Clause 13.2 was exclusive, rather than permissive- ie service could only be made under that clause and not by any other method. The Court of Appeal (Longmore LJ dissenting) rejected that argument too. It held that the first notice, although not personally served (as required under the contract) was still validly served on 30 March 2010 and there was "no room" for a second notice as well. Accordingly, the claim form had been served late

Eagle Ltd v Falcon Ltd

Security for costs application and the test of being unable to pay

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2012/2261.html

The defendant applied for security for its costs up to the end of the disclosure process. It sought to rely on the condition in CPR r25.13(2)(c): "the claimant is a company... and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so".

It was common ground that the claimant was insolvent on the balance sheet test. However, the claimant argued that it was "unduly mechanistic" to look simply at assets and liabilities in order to see if the condition had been met. It sought to rely on the case of BNY Corporate Trustees v Eurosail [2011]. However, Coulson J pointed out that that case had involved a dispute under the Insolvency Act and whether the simple balance sheet test justified the winding up of a company. That was said to be different from this case – the condition under CPR r25.13(2)(c) required a "different (and plainly lesser) test". Even if that was wrong, the claimant was also insolvent on the "cash-flow" test too.

The judge commented that it had been appropriate to limit the application to the next stage of the defendant's costs, rather than its costs as a whole. However, he found that the costs figures had been exaggerated and that estimates had fluctuated "wildly". He held that a figure of £295,000 was just and proportionate.

Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe & Ors

Entitlement of solicitors to costs following settlement by client

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2108.html

The claimant firm of solicitors acted for the defendant in proceedings which were settled. The other side agreed to pay the defendant's reasonable costs. The solicitors submitted a bill for £9, 500 but the defendant agreed with the other side that it would accept £6,000. That amount was eventually paid to the defendant (who has since gone abroad). The solicitors sought to argue that their lien over their costs was still "in play" provided the paying party knew about the lien (as it did here). Mackay J held, however, that knowledge alone did not suffice. The key factor here was that the defendant had not intended to "cheat" his solicitors by settling his claim. The paying party here had checked with the court that the solicitors were no longer on the record and there had been no collusion between the paying party and the defendant.

Jackson v Dear & Anor

Implied terms and the business efficacy test

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/2060.html

When summarising the law relating to the implication of terms into a contract, a point of dispute arose between the parties. One side argued that the Court of Appeal in Mediterranean Salvage v Seamar Trading (see Weekly Update 21/09) had "rowed back" from Lord Hoffmann's analysis in the case of Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom (see Weekly Update 20/09).

In the Belize case, Lord Hoffmann said that there is only one question to be asked when the court decides whether to imply a term – namely, "is that what the instrument, read as a whole against the relevant background, would reasonably be understood to mean?" He added that whether the implied term is "necessary to give business efficacy to the contract" is not a different or additional requirement. In the Mediterranean Salvage case, though, the Court of Appeal restated the importance of the business efficacy/necessity test.

Briggs J did not consider that the Court of Appeal had rowed back from Lord Hoffmann's analysis. He concluded that "although necessity continues ... to be a condition for the implication of terms, necessity to give business efficacy is not the only relevant type of necessity. The express terms of an agreement may work perfectly well in the sense that both parties can perform their express obligations, but the consequences would contradict what a reasonable person would understand the contract to mean. In such a case an implied term is necessary to spell out what the contract actually means".

He also said that where alternative interpretations are possible, the court can choose the one which makes more common sense (see Rainy Sky v Kookmin, Weekly Update 39/11) – but that does not elevate commercial common sense into an overriding criterion.

Other News

The Civil Justice Council has published updated guidance for instructing experts to give evidence in civil claims. It is anticipated that this guidance will be annexed to PD 35 in due course. Much of this guidance restates the current position but there are some new points to note, for example:

f. The terms of appointment agreed with the expert should include guidance that the expert's fees and expenses may be limited by the court

g. The instructions to the expert should include the dates fixed by the court (or agreed by the parties) for the exchange of experts' reports, as well as the name of the court, the claim number and the track to which the claim has been allocated

h. Experts should confirm as soon as possible after being instructed that they have access to all relevant information (ie the same information that has been disclosed by all the parties) and they must continue to monitor this

i. Any request for further information from the other side by the expert should state why the information is necessary and also the significance of the information in the context of a particular aspect of the case

j. Where there is sequential exchange of reports, the claimant's expert's report should be produced first. The guidance sets out various matters which the defendant's expert must contain in his report (see para 3.7.17)

k. Experts must not seek to settle the proceedings when they meet

l. Sanctions for breaches of CPR r35/PD 35 or court orders are also set out – these include costs penalties on those instructing the expert or the expert himself and possibly contempt charges

Further details can be found below:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/ CJC/Publications/Pre-action%20protocols/CJC%20 Guidance%20for%20the%20Instruction%20of%20Experts. pdf

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.