UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - 25 September 2012

Last Updated: 26 September 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the thirty-third 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.

This week's caselaw

Zeckler v Assigned Risk Pool Manager
A case on whether a partner of a solicitor firm is liable to pay the premium for a professional indemnity policy.

Ace European v Howden Group
A case on whether declaratory proceedings brought by English insurers in England served a useful purpose and whether England is the appropriate forum.

Illinois National Insurance Company v Tutor Perini & Anor
Orders made pursuant to a Letter of Request from America are set aside by the English court.

Smith v St Andrew's Insurance
A discussion of the burden of proof when insurers seek to rely on a policy exclusion and there are two possible causes (one criminal).

Zeckler v Assigned Risk Pool Manager

Whether partner of solicitor firm liable to pay premium for professional indemnity policy

The appellant (a limited partner in an LLP) appealed against a decision that he was liable to pay the premium for a professional indemnity insurance policy issued to the LLP by the respondent (the manager of a scheme providing PI cover for firms of solicitors which could not otherwise obtain such cover on normal terms). The appellant was not the partner who had arranged the PI cover.

Rule 10.3 of the Solicitors' Indemnity Insurance Rules 2009 provides that the firm, and any principal of the firm, shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the premium if an application for cover under the scheme is made. The appellant argued that this rule might found a disciplinary complaint against him but did not amount to a contract between himself and the insurers.

Strauss QC held that he was not satisfied that the appellant was personally liable for the premium: "What one would expect to find here is something in the contractual wording which makes it clear that the members of the LLP are parties to the contract, and are obliged to pay the premiums". In this case, though, there was no evidence of any such contractual provision (and no cover note or policy was produced in evidence). Nor was the judge convinced that there was an implied contract between the principals of the firm and the insurers. Accordingly, there was a "genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt" and a statutory demand obtained by the insurers was set aside.

Ace European v Howden Group

Whether declaratory proceedings brought by English insurers in England served a useful purpose/whether England the appropriate forum

The background to this case has been reported in Weekly Updates 39/11 and 27/12. Numerous suits have been brought against the insured, a US international engineering group, alleging injuries caused by exposure to asbestos products manufactured by one of its subsidiaries. The insured commenced proceedings in Pennsylvania against some of its excess insurers, who subsequently commenced two separate proceedings in England seeking a declaration that the relevant insurance policies are governed by English law and are subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts (there was no express clause to this effect in the policies). In one of those proceedings, Beatson J held that the insurers had much the better of the argument that there had been an implied choice of English law and that England was the appropriate forum. The Court of Appeal dismissed the insured's appeal against that decision. In the other set of proceedings the insured sought to rely on two arguments which it had run before:

(1) The grant of the declaration would not be of sufficient utility. Although he did not simply follow Beatson J's decision, Field J reached the same conclusion as him on this point. He found that there was a real prospect that English law will be held to be the governing law in the US proceedings, in which case it is reasonable to assume that the US court will find the English judgment to be of considerable assistance. (Although a US judge had concluded in an interlocutory hearing that it was unlikely that English law would apply, she had not heard full argument on this point). A declaration would also be useful in resisting enforcement of a judgement that ignores the implied choice of law of the parties. The insurers in this set of proceedings are all foreign companies but they are London market insurers "who have a legitimate expectation that the parties to the policies would be bound by their express or implied agreement that the policies were governed by English law".

(2) England was not the appropriate forum. This argument was also rejected by Field J. The general principle that a court applies its own law more reliably than a foreign court can pointed strongly in favour of England as the appropriate forum. Furthermore, it was likely that a judgment in England could be obtained before a final judgment in the US and trial in England would only need very limited factual evidence.

Illinois National Insurance Company v Tutor Perini & Anor

Orders made pursuant to a Letter of Request set aside by English court

This was an application to set aside orders made pursuant to a Letter of Request of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The US proceedings involve a complex insurance dispute. Due to time pressure, Lang J gave only summary reasons for her decision to set aside the orders. Although she rejected an argument that the orders were inappropriate because they were of an investigatory nature and amounted to a "fishing expedition" - she instead concluded that they amounted to legitimate lines of enquiry in relation to the US proceedings - she held as follows:

(1) An order for disclosure of documents by an employee of an insurance broker should have been made against the broker itself and not the individual employee. The broker had refused to allow its employee to provide the documents in her possession. Furthermore, the categories of documents listed in the order were far too broad - specific documents should have been identified instead.

(2) Orders for the oral examination of two of the broker's employees should be set aside because (a) the issues on which they were to be examined were not sufficiently pleaded; (b) the issues on which they were to be examined potentially went beyond the issues in the pleaded case; and (c) it was oppressive and unfair to examine them without giving them advance notice of the documentary evidence which is relevant to the issues on which they are to be questioned.

COMMENT: Letters of Request from US courts can prove difficult for the English courts because of the different approach to disclosure in the two countries. This case highlights how English courts are often alive to the possibility that US-based applications might seek impermissibly wide disclosure.

Smyth v St Andrew's Insurance

Burden of proof when insurers seek to rely on policy exclusion and there are two possible causes (one criminal)

The claimant sought an indemnity from his insurers following a fire at his property. The fire started in the bedroom of one of his tenants and there were only two possible causes of the fire: 1) it was started accidentally by the tenant; or 2) it was started deliberately by the claimant's partner. If it was started deliberately by the partner, insurers would be able to rely on a policy exclusion for loss or damaged caused by a member of the claimant's family (which included "a person (whether or not of the same sex) with whom you are permanently cohabiting").

Although the case turns on its particular facts, it is noteworthy because of the judge's comments regarding the burden and standard of proof. It was common ground that the burden of proof lay on the insurers who were attempting to rely on a policy exclusion. Although the standard of proof in a civil case is the balance of probabilities, in this case, one of the two possible causes of the fire would have involved the commission of a serious criminal offence (and so stronger evidence would be needed to support such a finding). In Re B [2008] Lord Hoffmann held that "there is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities".

Insurers sought to argue that although criminal acts are less likely to take place than non-criminal acts, that did not mean that the mere raising of a "possible" non-criminal cause will always suffice for a suggested criminal cause to be rejected. Although the judge accepted those submissions "so far as they go", he said that the point remained that it was less likely here that someone (in particular a resident and partner of the home owner) would deliberately start a fire than that a smoker would carelessly discard a lit cigarette. He concluded that there was no compelling evidence to displace the starting point of that common sense view and so insurers were liable under the policy.

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.

Nigel Brook
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions