UK: Brokers´ liability - assuming the worst

Last Updated: 12 April 2006
Article by Neil Beighton and Andrew Symons

Last month saw the publication of the Commercial Court’s judgment in BP v Aon, one of the most substantial pieces of litigation against an insurance broker in recent years. The case provides important guidance on the broking process and the utilisation of open covers, in both the London and overseas markets, but is perhaps of most interest for its exploration of a broker’s liability to an insured in tort, despite the absence of any contractual relationship.

To view the article in full please see below:

Full Article

Last month saw the publication of the Commercial Court’s judgment in BP v Aon, one of the most substantial pieces of litigation against an insurance broker in recent years. The case provides important guidance on the broking process and the utilisation of open covers, in both the London and overseas markets, but is perhaps of most interest for its exploration of a broker’s liability to an insured in tort, despite the absence of any contractual relationship.

The full heading of the case – BP Plc v Aon Limited and Aon Risk Services of Texas Inc [2006] EWHC 424 (Comm) – reveals that there were two Defendants, referred to in the judgment as Aon London and Aon Texas. Aon Texas had contracted to place insurances for a number of construction projects involving BP and its joint venture partners. In practice, the placing of the various insurances was carried out by both Aon Texas and Aon London. The insurances were declared to an open cover which was placed and administered partly by Aon Texas and partly by Aon London. The instructions were initially received by Aon Texas from the Amoco arm of BP Amoco in the US, but subsequently BP in London started to communicate with Aon London direct.

The only written contract in place was a Service Agreement between BP and Aon Texas. That agreement limited Aon Texas’ liability in respect of certain potential claims, but did not mention Aon London. The Aon companies declared risks to the open cover on the basis that only the two leading underwriters needed to be notified of each declaration. In previous litigation, this had been held to be a breach of the terms of the open cover requiring declarations to be notified to following underwriters as well as the two leaders. Those underwriters who had not been notified had been held not to be on risk. BP’s claim against Aon was seeking to make up the shortfall.

Colman J applied a series of cases holding that a sub-agent can be directly liable to the principal in tort, despite the absence of any contract, provided there has been an "assumption of responsibility". On the facts of the case, he found that Aon London had assumed responsibility to BP, even though they were not BP’s direct agent. This concept of assumed responsibility gives rise to considerable uncertainty. In a market were the use of more than one broker is not infrequent, but the relationships between the various parties are rarely documented, it will be very difficult to determine whether a broker has crossed the line of assuming responsibility direct to the insured. A finding of liability in tort in such a case circumvents the need for any contractual or agency relationship, which might reasonably be considered to be a sensible threshold for imposing a duty of care.

The length of the judgment is indicative of the complexity of the factual background, but to understand the effect of the decision it is useful to be aware of some of the history of the relationship.

The open cover giving rise to the dispute was originally placed on behalf of Amoco, which was headquartered in the US and instructed Aon Texas. Amoco was aware that Aon London were involved but there was no real direct contact. The cover was placed by Aon Texas with one of the leads, AIG, and a few of the following markets. Aon London placed with the second lead, Swiss Re, and more of the following markets.

The placing of the open cover had started in late 1998. By the end of 1998, a merger between BP and Amoco had been announced, and with the agreement of all underwriters the cover was extended to include BP projects as well as Amoco projects. Initially, instructions from BP were channelled through the US contacts, but over time there came to be more and more direct communication between BP in London and Aon London.

The key feature of the open cover was that rates were agreed at the time the cover was placed in 1998. The cover was for a period up to 30 June 2000, and towards the end of this period it was becoming clear that the rates at which risks could be attached under the cover was considerably more attractive than the open market rates prevailing at the time. The nature of the cover also made the placing process considerably less time-consuming than an open market placement. This led to a flurry of declarations at the end of the period of the cover, including a number of declarations on 30 June 2000 itself.

Several of these declarations were notified only to the leaders. In earlier proceedings between BP and the following markets, it was held that notification to the leaders was insufficient to bind the following market and that declarations were therefore ineffective against those following underwriters. The leading underwriter clause failed to deal with the declaration process and referred only to the process for agreeing endorsements, and for claims handling. Aon London had inserted this clause in the cover, and loss had been suffered when risks were declared without being notified to the followers.

A strange feature of the litigation is that it was never argued that the following market actually needed to agree any of the declarations. All that would have been necessary for the declarations to have been binding on the following market would have been notification. If notified of a declaration, the following market would not have had the right to decline that risk. Nor would they have needed to take any positive step to consent to a declaration. It seems harsh that Aon London end up picking up the tab for what was essentially an administrative failure when the following underwriters, who were willing to be bound to declarations without any individual rating or assessment of those risks, were able to walk away because of that administrative failing. This does, however, emphasise the need for clarity in drafting such provisions. An open cover is a contract to insure, rather than a contract of insurance, and is not strictly governed by the market’s contract certainty initiative, but need for certainty is, if anything, even more acute where a facility is being granted to which numerous risks may be declared.

The supposed shortcomings which were the subject of the proceedings were in relation to matters handled by Aon London. Aon argued that there was a contractual chain, with only Aon Texas being in a direct contractual relationship with BP, and that there should be no tortious liability outside of that contractual relationship.

In analysing this issue, Colman J undertook an extensive review of the authorities, most notably Henderson v Merrett [1995] 2 AC 145, in which it had been held by the House of Lords that Lloyd’s Managing Agents owed duties in tort to so-called "indirect names" as well as a contractual duty to "direct names". Lord Goff’s speech in Henderson propounded the theory that for a tortious liability to arise there must be an assumption of responsibility.

Curiously, Colman J deals with a case that might be thought of as potentially the most direct relevant – the Court of Appeal’s decision in Punjab v De Boinville [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 – almost as an afterthought. In Punjab individual employees of the broker, as well as the corporate entity, were held to owe a duty of care to the insured. Punjab can itself be viewed as a harsh decision, but is of course binding precedent on a lower Court unless distinguishable. Colman J says that he cannot see how that situation can be different from the broker/sub-broker relationship. It may be arguable, however, that there is a clear distinction between the position of employees of the contracting company (the direct agent) and the position of a completely separate company.

Colman J does distinguish the position in the construction industry where there is typically a chain of written contracts down the sub-contracting line, each specifying responsibility for sub-contractors actions. There are a series of cases which state that in that situation only the head contractor is responsible to the client. It may be questionable, however, whether the distinction is as clear-cut as Colman J suggests. The inter-relationships between the different parties in the broking context may in fact be quite similar to those in the construction industry, the difference being that in broking the contractual relationships are not usually committed to paper. That is not to say, however, that the same contractual duties might not arise, if only impliedly. The Judge does not analyse the true contractual position in any great detail.

Having reached the conclusion on the law that there was scope for a duty in tort based on the assumption of responsibility, Colman J analyses the facts in considerable depth to determine whether there was in fact such an assumption of responsibility. Whilst the Judge’s analysis is very thorough and careful, it may be argued that the necessity to undertake such an exercise (with considerable benefit of hindsight) is indicative of the difficulties that are likely to arise if the law continues to develop in the same direction. Both brokers and their clients need to know the potential consequences if errors occur. A simple test that would allow both parties to know where they stand would be preferable to an approach that requires a lengthy Commercial Court trial to know whether a duty has arisen.

Colman J’s judgment also includes lengthy examination of some of the quantum and causation issues. Many of these points were case-specific, but potentially of wider application is Colman J’s approach to the reasonableness of BP’s settlement with certain of the insurers. The Judge essentially holds that the brokers, in the second round of litigation, cannot seek to re-open arguments which they say ought to have been pursued more aggressively in the first round of litigation, provided the overall settlement was broadly reasonable. Brokers will need to be aware that a consequence of their traditional wariness to become directly involved in disputes between (re)insureds and (re)insurers may lead to them being fixed with the outcome of such disputes.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 12/04/2006.

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.