UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - 19 March 2013

Last Updated: 26 March 2013
Article by Nigel Brook

Insurance And Reinsurance - 19 March 2013

Welcome to the tenth edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2013.

These updates are aimed at keeping you up to speed and informed of the latest developments in caselaw relevant to your practice.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012: Following the publication of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (Commencement) Order 2013, it has now been confirmed that the Act will come into force on 6 April 2013:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/450/contents/made

This week's caselaw

Hyundai Merchant Marine v Americas Bulk Transport
Whether a section 67 challenge involves a full rehearing in relation to the arbitration agreement only.

Geophysical Service v Dowell Schlumberger
A security for costs application where the claimant has an ATE insurance policy.

Euro-Asian Oil v Abilo & Ors
Court decides whether an extension of time to serve a claim form in Switzerland should be set aside.

AJ Building v Turner & Ors
A case on whether an insured, rather than the insurer, should pay contractors.

Brumder v Motornet Service
A decision on whether a company (and its insurers) were liable to a sole director injured at work.

Billingham v John Barnsley
A case on mesothelioma and what employers could be expected to know in the 1960s – of possible interest to employers' liability insurers.

Hyundai Merchant Marine v Americas Bulk Transport

Whether section 67 challenge involves full rehearing re arbitration agreement only

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/470.html

The claimant applied to court to challenge an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrators lacked substantive jurisdiction (pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996). It was common ground that the challenge would involve a full rehearing. However, the defendant sought to argue that the rehearing should be limited to the jurisdiction issue, i.e. it should consider whether the parties had agreed an arbitration agreement and should not look at the wider issue of whether the parties had entered into any contract at all. It sought to rely on the decision in Fiona Trust v Privalov (see Weekly Update 40/07), in which the House of Lords had held that an arbitration agreement can only be void or voidable on grounds which relate directly to the arbitration agreement and not to the agreement as a whole (because of the principle laid down in section 7 of the 1996 Act that arbitration clauses are separable from the rest of an agreement which has been found to be invalid).

Eder J rejected that argument. Here, the submission was that there had been no consensus at all between the parties and this would not only have prevented any contract from coming into existence but also any arbitration agreement from coming into existence too: "There is no evidence or other material in the particular circumstances of the present case that the parties intended here that any alleged arbitration agreement was intended to have effect independently of the existence of the proposed [contract]". Since the alleged arbitration agreement and the alleged contract were said to be contained in the same document, the submission that there was no binding contract necessarily meant that there was no arbitration agreement either.

Eder J also distinguished this position from the "provisional" view adopted by Gross J in UR Power v Kuok Oils and Grains (see Weekly Update 29/09) that section 7 applies even though the underlying contract never came into existence. He did so on the basis that there was no evidence in the particular circumstances of the present case that the parties intended that any alleged arbitration agreement would have effect independently of the existence of the proposed contract. Accordingly, whether there was both a binding contract and a binding arbitration agreement should be decided in a full rehearing. The judge concluded that there had been no binding arbitration agreement and so the award should be set aside.

COMMENT: The Fiona Trust decision can be difficult to apply in practice since parties do not often consider whether an arbitration agreement has been concluded separately from the rest of the contract in which it is found. The position may be different where it is alleged that the parties never agreed any contract at all (and so the purported arbitration agreement in that contract necessarily failed to come into existence as well). Eder J's decision that, unless it can be specifically shown that the parties in such a case wanted an alleged arbitration agreement to have independent effect, it will stand or fall with the rest of the contract in which it is found, may be a practical one in cases such as that, but it is arguably difficult to square with the Fiona Trust decision. However, there is some prior caselaw support for this decision. In Harbour Assurance v Kansa General [1993], the Court of Appeal did accept that "there will obviously be cases in which a claim that no contract came into existence necessarily entails a denial that there was any agreement to arbitrate" (although it went on to caution that "there is no reason why every case of initial invalidity should have this consequence" and it is still necessary to consider the validity of the arbitration agreement separately).

Geophysical Service v Dowell Schlumberger

Security for costs application where the claimant has an ATE insurance policy

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2013/147.html&query=title+(+geophysical+and+dowell+)&method=Boolean

The defendant applied for security for costs on the basis that the claimant is a company and there was reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so (CPR r25.13(2)(c)). The issue in this case was whether the claimant could rely on an ATE policy of insurance which it had taken out to argue that there is no basis to say that there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay. The same issue arose in Michael Phillips Architects v Riklin (see Weekly Update 16/10). In that case, Akenhead J concluded that the ATE insurance policy did not provide real security for the defendant's costs because of various policy conditions which would allow the insurer to cancel the policy or to refuse an indemnity.

In this case, Smith J held that the judge's reasoning in Riklin did not compel or guide him to reach the same conclusion. Riklin had relied on earlier authority which in turn had been decided when the ATE market was considerable less mature than it is now. In the absence of evidence to

the contrary: "the court's starting position should be that a properly drafted ATE policy provided by a substantial and reputable insurer is a reliable source of litigation funding" and so an ATE policy can suffice to prevent CPR r25.13(2)(c) from applying. The court had to form a view as to the likelihood of the particular policy being "readily, legitimately and contractually avoided". He found that there was no more than a "theoretical chance" here that the insurers would seek to avoid or cancel the policy. In particular:

(1) The facts here did not support a finding that the underlying claim being brought by the claimant was fraudulent (and so would justify cancellation by insurers). There is a "world of difference" between a finding that the claimant's account is not true (ie incorrect) and a finding that an account is fraudulent.

(2) Even if the insurer were to cancel the ATE policy here, it would still be "liable to meet the cost of any disbursements together with your opponent's legal costs incurred up to the date of cancellation". Smith J held that it was very unlikely that a court would accept an argument that costs which the defendant had incurred, but which were not yet subject to a court order at the date of cancellation, were not to be indemnified. Such a conclusion would be contrary to the obvious commercial purpose of the policy.

(3) A further factor which the judge "weighed in the balance" was the long-standing commercial relationship between the ATE insurer and the claimant's solicitor, which he said made it much less likely that the insurer would seek to avoid on spurious or tenuous grounds.

Finally, the fact that the defendant was not a party to the policy and so could not enforce the contract directly (in the absence of the claimant's insolvency) was not enough to alter the judge's conclusion. He added that CPR r72 (which allows a judgment creditor to obtain payment of money from a third party which it owes to the judgment creditor) would provide a measure of protection should the defendant obtain a costs order against the claimant.

COMMENT: There has been speculation as to what impact the end of recoverability of ATE premiums is likely to have on insurers who write this line of business. However, where cover is provided for higher value commercial litigation, this case could provide an incentive to claimant companies facing financial difficulties to take out an ATE policy on the basis that it could save them from tying up cash following a security for costs application (especially if insurers are prepared to continue to allow the deferred payment of the premium).

Euro-Asian Oil v Abilo & Ors

Whether extension of time to serve claim form in Switzerland should be set aside

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/485.html

The second defendant applied to set aside an order allowing an extension of time for service of the claim form on it in Switzerland. The first argument raised by the claimant was that the application to extend time had been made on notice and so the second defendant could not seek to set aside the extension now – instead it could only appeal the order (such an appeal now being out of time). Burton J rejected that argument. The claimant had notified a London firm of solicitors (who had previously acted for the second defendant) that it intended to make the application (on paper) and had sent a letter to the court commenting on objections raised by those solicitors. However, those solicitors had repeatedly told the claimant that they were not instructed to accept service and were not on the record for the second defendant. Burton J held that "at the highest" the application to extend time had been ex parte on notice and it is well established that in such a case, if a defendant chooses to attend court and speak, having been given only short notice, that does not amount to a waiver of the defendant's right to apply to set aside an order. In this case, the second defendant had not even attended court.

As for the application to set aside the order, Burton J reviewed prior caselaw and noted that the relevant limitation period was not about to expire here and that the second defendant had been given notice of the proposed claim. However, the claimant could not show a good reason for an extension of the time to serve. The judge observed that "waiting, certainly waiting for so long as to take up all or the majority of the generous periods of time for service of the writ, in seeking to persuade the proposed Defendants to instruct solicitors or to put forward a substantive defence or to make an offer in settlement, is not to be regarded as a good reason, but it is indeed rather to be treated as a bad reason or as negligence or incompetence; and the obtaining of further information or the thinking up of fresh or different causes of action before finalising Particulars of Claim and/or service of the Claim Form would be regarded as a serious error of judgment". The claimant had also committed the "real error" of taking steps to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction on another defendant without taking similar steps at the same time to serve on the second defendant.

Nor was the judge prepared to exercise his discretion to exceptionally grant an extension. He referred to the strictness of the regime and the fact that the need for the issue of fresh proceedings had been caused by the claimant's behaviour. Nor could the second defendant be criticised for choosing not to instruct the London solicitors to accept service of the claim form.

AJ Building v Turner & Ors

Whether insured should pay contractors instead of insurer

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/484.html

The defendants' houses suffered damage and they claimed on their property insurance policies. The insurer instructed a company ("A") to carry out remedial works and that company in turn instructed a contractor (the claimant) to do the works. The insurer paid A, but it then went into administration, leaving the claimant unpaid. The claimant sought to recover under a "Works Authority & Mandate" which was provided to, and signed by, each defendant. The mandate was on the claimant's notepaper and provided (in relevant part) that: "I/We understand that I/we remain responsible for payment of any policy excess or any monies due for work authorised by me/us, which is not paid by my/our insurer" (emphasis added). Keyser QC HHJ held as follows:

(1) In the absence of the mandate, there would be no implied contractual obligation on the defendants to pay for the full cost of the works. Both the claimant and defendants knew that the insurer was to pay for the works and the defendants had no idea of the cost of those works. Furthermore, the defendants had paid their policy excess to A and not to the claimant.

(2) The mandate should be interpreted in accordance with the usual principle of contractual interpretation as well as regulation 7(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which provides that if there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail. The judge held that this was no different from the contra proferentem rule and did not mean that the usual principles of construction no longer applied (as the defendants had sought to argue).

(3) The judge concluded that it was "perfectly possible" (and consonant with the commercial common sense of the situation) to interpret the mandate as meaning that, although the insurer will be responsible for paying the cost of the insured losses, the householder will remain liable for all other costs, namely the policy excess and any works not covered by insurance. The mandate did not amount to a guarantee of the insurer's obligation to pay – nor did it pass to the defendants the risk of A "disappearing" with the payment from the insurer.

Brumder v Motornet Service

Whether company (and its insurers) were liable to its sole director injured at work

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/195.html

The claimant, the sole director and shareholder of a company, suffered personal injuries at work. The company was in breach of its statutory obligation to maintain work equipment. This is an absolute duty. However, it was also found at trial that the claimant had not given any consideration to health and safety matters and so had breached his duty as a director to exercise reasonable care (a duty which he owed to the company). The issue in this case was whether the claimant could recover damages for his injuries or whether the company (and its insurers) could rely on the defence established in Ginty v Belmont Building [1959] that an employer who is absolutely liable for the breach of statutory duty can set up a defence that he was not in any way in fault and the claimant was alone to blame.

In the past, the cases where that defence has been raised have arisen where the employer and the claimant breached the same statutory duty or when claimant disobeyed express instructions from the employer, and that disobedience was itself a breach of statutory duty.

The Court of Appeal has now held that, for policy reasons, the defence could be relied on by the company here. In particular:

(1) The claimant here was a wrongdoer and so, in accordance with common law principles, cannot derive any advantage from his own wrong.

(2) If the claimant was entitled to recover damages from the company, the company would be able to argue that the claimant had breached a duty which he owed to it and so it was entitled to recover the damages which it had to pay the claimant from the claimant. Thus there would be circuity of action.

(3) Allowing the company to rely on the Ginty defence would not, in these circumstances, involve an impermissible lifting of the corporate veil.

Billingham v John Barnsley

Mesothelioma and what employers could be expected to know in the 1960s – of possible interest to employers' liability insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/520.html

The claimant brought proceedings on behalf of the estate of an employee who died of mesothelioma in 2008. The second defendants had employed him during the tax years 1968/9 and 1969/70. They sought to argue that it had not been reasonably foreseeable to them (at the time) that the employee would be likely to be exposed to the risk of contracting mesothelioma when he worked on their premises.

Employers' knowledge of the risk from exposure to asbestos fibres has developed over time. A link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma was recognised in 1965. In March 1970 the HM Factory Inspectorate published a technical note (TDN 13) containing guidance on exposure to asbestos dust. TDN 13 was referred to by the Court of Appeal in Williams v University of Birmingham (see Weekly Update 39/11). There, Aikens LJ said that the best guide as to what, in 1974, was an acceptable level of exposure to asbestos generally was that contained in TDN 13 and the defendant in that case "was entitled to rely on recognised and established guidelines such as those in Note 13".

The claimant sought to argue that the Williams case was inconsistent with earlier authority if it held that the levels of exposure set out in TDN 13 amounted to a "safe" level of exposure and that the Court of Appeal had held in Maguire v Harland and Wolff [2005] that in 1965 it began to be appreciated that "there could be no safe or permissible level of exposure" to asbestos dust.

Bean J held that if an employer in 1970 had no reason to think that the TDN 13 levels of exposure would be exceeded, then injury from asbestos fibres was not reasonably foreseeable. Furthermore, if TDN 13 was the best guide in 1970 of what was regarded as an acceptable level of exposure,"it is hard to see that such a level would have been regarded as unacceptable in 1968 or 1969". In any event, though, the defendants here had every reason to think that the levels in TDN 13 would be exceeded for short periods and so their employees would be exposed to a foreseeable risk of injury.

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.