Worldwide: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 28 October 2014

Last Updated: 10 November 2014
Article by Nigel Brook

Sugar Hut Group v AJ Insurance

Calculation of business interruption losses

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2014/3352.html

This is a rare case on calculating a business interruption insurance claim. The claimant owned four nightclubs, one of which was damaged by a serious fire in September 2009. The nightclub re-opened in August 2010. The claimant was unable to claim under its insurance policy because of non-disclosure and breaches of warranties (and that position was confirmed by Burton J in 2010 (see Weekly Update 40/10). The claimant therefore sought to sue its brokers and the brokers admitted certain allegations of negligence. This case concerned the calculation of the claimant's business interruption losses (ie the amount which the claimant would have been able to claim under its policy, but for the brokers' negligence).

The main issue in contention was the calculation of the claimant's loss of turnover for 2009/10. The difficulty in this case was the lack of evidence on turnover before October 2008. The claimant's expert based his calculation on an average between two perspectives: (1) an extrapolation of the turnover 11 months prior to the fire (allowing for any trends in business, the policy having contained a trends clause), minus holiday periods; and (2) actual turnover after the club re-opened. Although Eder J accepted a general and significant increase in turnover over 2008/9, he thought this was around 20% (rather than the 27% claimed by the claimant). However, it was "mere speculation" that this increase would be spread over the entire following year (including holiday periods) and some further modification was made because of that. As the judge put it: "I should make plain that this figure is not based on any mathematical exercise" and "I fully recognise that this exercise is necessarily somewhat crude and inexact". Although the judge recognised that the turnover actually achieved after the club re-opened was potentially relevant, in the circumstances of this case, it should be ignored (because, eg, some of the figures extended beyond even 2011 and so were some distance in time away from the relevant period of 2009/10).

Other losses were also considered by the judge, eg:

(i) staff wages (on the basis that some staff were still paid after the fire because the claimant did not wish to lose their skills from the business). The judge accepted that this head of claim might be recoverable, but it failed because of a lack of evidence about what these staff members actually did.

(ii) loss of profits at the claimant's other nightclubs because of the loss of files and data at the damaged nightclub's premises – in particular, the loss of an extensive client mailing list. The judge accepted that this too could have been recoverable but, again, a lack of evidence, together with the likely impact of the general recession at the relevant time, meant that he rejected this claim for loss of profits. He also felt that some customer data would still have been available via other means.

The judge also decided that an appropriate rate of interest on the claimant's damages in this case was 5% pa (which was the rate of interest generally payable by a company like the claimant, even though the claimant was actually liable to pay interest of over 6% on certain of its loans). Furthermore, the claimant could not be criticised for delay in suing the brokers because it had been entitled to sue its insurers first.

Bluefin Insurance Services v FOS

Whether a director under a D&O policy is a "consumer" for FOS purposes

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3413.html

The applicant broker acted for a company in obtaining D&O insurance. Mr Lochner was a director of that company and hence an "insured person" under the policy. The broker failed to pass on his notification of a potential claim against him to the insurers and hence the insurer rejected the claim. Mr Lochner sought to bring a complaint against the broker to the Financial Ombudsman Service ("FOS"). The broker argued that FOS had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because Mr Lochner was not a "consumer". This is defined in the glossary to the FCA Handbook as "a natural person acting for purposes outside his trade, business, or profession". FOS held that it did have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the broker sought judicial review of that decision.

Wilkie J has now held that:

(1) The FOS decision was a decision on "precedent fact", and hence was a decision which the court is entitled to review (in order to establish whether the facts upon which the FOS decision was based did exist). Even if that was wrong, the judge would consider whether the FOS decision was right or wrong (and, if wrong, that would render the decision challengeable by way of judicial review).

(2) Under the relevant rules, a complainant must be eligible at the time the complaint is brought.

(3) Mr Lochner did not fall within the definition of a "consumer". Wilkie J rejected an argument that Mr Lochner was a beneficiary of an insurance policy which served to protect him in his private life against liabilities which he incurred as a director. Instead, the judge held that "the subject matter of his complaint was wholly concerned with the potential loss arising from lack of insurance cover in respect of a liability which he had incurred in the course of his trade, business, or profession".

The judge also held that D&O policies differ from other group protection policies, such as a private health insurance policy entered into for the benefit of a workforce. A complaint made by a beneficiary under that sort of policy in respect of a failure properly to manage the policy, thereby causing loss, could be made as a consumer. The point of such a policy is to provide protection in respect of the private interests of the members of the scheme in having a particular level of healthcare or a particular level of income in the event of ill-health.

Accordingly, the FOS decision was quashed.

Moss-Davies v Celtic Technologies

Whether claimant had a good reason for late service of the claim form

Transcript attached

Clyde & Co (Victor Rae-Reeves and Jana Zaujecova) for defendant

The defendant's solicitors informed the claimant's solicitors that they were nominated to accept service of the claim form. Under the CPR, service therefore had to be effected on them. However, the claimant's solicitors instead posted the claim form to the defendant's registered office and then (on the next day, after the time for service of the claim form, and limitation, had expired), it sent copies of the claim form to the defendant's solicitors. The claimant accepted that service on the defendant had not been valid (and it could not rely on the Companies Act 2006 either because service under the Act is deemed to take place at the time of delivery, which was too late in this case). Furthermore, "notifying the claim or sending a sealed copy of the claim form otherwise than for the purpose of service is not itself service" (and hence the defendant's solicitors had not been validly served either). The claimant therefore applied under CPR r6.15(2) for an order validating service by an alternative method (instead of applying under CPR r7.6 to extend time for service, since it was felt that the threshold requirements under that rule could not be met).

The claimant sought to rely on the Supreme Court decision in Abela v Baadarani (see Weekly Update 24/13), in which it was held that only a "good reason" (and not exceptional circumstances) was required to justify an order under CPR r6.15(2). The judge, David Berkley QC, held that it would be "wrong to characterise the bar as being a modest one" though. It is not enough just to show that the defendant has been notified of the claim by some other means. Abela could be distinguished from this case on the basis that there the defendant had not been co-operative and it had been impracticable to serve in Lebanon.

The only reason for non-compliance with the CPR here had been the claimant's own error in using an impermissible mode of service. It did not matter that there had been no prejudice to the defendant (other than the loss of a limitation defence) or that the non-compliance had been minimal.

Accordingly, the claimant's application was dismissed.

COMMENT: Although Abela suggested a relaxation of the approach to the exercise of the court's discretion to validate service, this case demonstrates that the burden of still demonstrating a "good reason" will not easily be discharged and will require more than simply an honest mistake having been made, or a lack of real prejudice to the defendant.

Caliendo v Mishcon de Reya

Application for relief from sanctions where notice of funding given late/whether recoverability of success fees/ATE premiums infringes Human Rights

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3414.html

CPR r44.15 (before it was replaced on 1 April 2013) provided that a party who seeks to recover an "additional liability" (eg a success fee or ATE insurance premium) had to provide information about its funding arrangements to the court and the other parties (and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct contained a similar provision). The sanction for failing to comply is that the additional liability will be irrecoverable. In this case, the notice was served late, due to an oversight by the claimant's solicitors, and so the claimant applied for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.9.

The claimant accepted that it had no "good reason" for this breach. However, following the guidance in Denton v TH White (see Weekly Update 26/14), Hildyard J decided to grant relief because the defendants had been unable to show material prejudice as a result of the breach and because of all of the circumstances of the case.

One further argument raised by the defendant was based on certain comments by Lord Neuberger in the Supreme Court decision of Coventry v Lawrence [2014], to the effect that it may be that the pre-2013 regime enabling recovery of success fees and the ATE premium infringed the European Convention on Human Rights (and that this was a "circumstance" to be taken into account by the court). Hildyard J refused to assess this argument, given that there is also existing House of Lords authority to the effect that the pre-2013 regime is compatible with the Convention. Even in Coventry v Lawrence, the Supreme Court had said it would be wrong to decide that point without HM Government having had an opportunity to address the court on this issue.

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.