UK: Coverage Issues – Ensuring Early Preservation Of Policy Points

Last Updated: 12 March 2008
Article by Nik Carle

Kosmar Villa Holidays Plc-V-Trustees Of Syndicate 1243 (Court of Appeal, 29 February 2008)

The Court of Appeal has ruled supportively for Underwriters in this important case about the taking, investigating and waiving of policy points.

Kosmar, a specialist travel operator, had arranged public liability insurance for its business over the period 2001-2002. In August 2002, one of Kosmar's customers ('the Claimant') suffered very serious injuries after diving into the shallow end of the swimming pool at a resort in Kavos. Significantly, Kosmar did not notify its Underwriters about this incident until over a year later, at the beginning of September 2003.

This delayed notification led to some involved litigation. A General Condition within the relevant insurance policy provided that:

"The insured shall immediately after the occurrence of any Injury or Damage give notice in writing with full particulars thereof to insurers."

At the High Court trial, it was accepted by all concerned that condition precedent status attached to this requirement for 'immediate' notification. However, had Underwriters effectively waived compliance with the condition precedent by corresponding with Kosmar and the Claimant's solicitors, during mid-September 2003, in the manner that they did?

The evidence revealed that, during the middle part of September 2003 ('the September dealings'):

  1. Underwriters' wrote to Kosmar with 25 background questions concerning the incident generally;
  2. Underwriters also wrote to the Claimant's solicitors to inform them that they were Kosmar's liability insurers and to advise that they were investigating the matter with a view to providing their views on liability. They also asked about the Claimant's current position and any plans to obtain medical evidence;
  3. Underwriters had initially written to Kosmar, without applying any reservation of rights at all to observe that: "We should probably win this case...". They also added that they had decided not to deny liability just yet (in respect of the Claimant's claim) and that they proposed to "await [Kosmar's] reply to [Underwriters'] various requests ...".

Some 2 weeks later, on 30 September 2003, Underwriters wrote again to Kosmar, now reserving their position on grounds of the General Condition and the issue of late notification.

It is relevant to say that there was something of a history between the individual Underwriters in this case (who had dealt with Kosmar's business for some years through different cover-holder schemes) and Kosmar's legal manager and broker. The parties had tried to streamline claims handling procedures so that Kosmar could improve its claims record and drive down premiums. The Underwriters, too, were keen to secure Kosmar's business. It was recognised that it would be unduly burdensome for Kosmar to have to give immediate notification of every occurrence, whether minor or not and in response, Underwriters agreed that only cases that were not 'clear cut' on liability would have to be referred through immediately.

In the period before the key September 2003 notification, there had been 16 other claims notified through to Underwriters by Kosmar. Interestingly, all of those carried with them a delay of 2-5 months after the incidents in question had happened. Underwriters had not, however, rejected any of those prior claims on grounds of late notification or otherwise.

High Court

At first instance trial, Kosmar argued that the prior claims history (before September 2003) had effectively estopped Underwriters from taking the condition precedent point, on the subject case, for late notification. The Judge decided that Underwriters' treatment of those other claims evidenced that they were taking no more than a case-by-case approach. In short, it was decided that the payment of some prior claims, irrespective of Kosmar's non-compliance with the notification provision, could not be said to give Kosmar carte blanche for the future.

The Trial Judge had then turned to Underwriters' conduct in relation to the September dealings. Could this amount to an 'unequivocal communication' of Underwriters' election to waive compliance with the condition precedent requiring immediate notification. He found for Kosmar on this point, deciding that the relevant communications demonstrated "objectively or unequivocally the making of an informed choice by [Underwriters] to deal with [the Claimant's] claim."

The Judge also ruled for Kosmar on the issue of Underwriters 'knowing all they needed to know' by the point of first notification in September 2003 and therefore, a reasonable time to make their election had passed by the point of their taking up the September dealings.

Finally, at trial, the Judge looked at whether Underwriters' behaviour - after first notification in September - could constitute an estoppel and/or an affirmation. Kosmar's arguments were, however, rejected on both of these bases.

So, the Judge decided Kosmar was entitled to an indemnity from Underwriters but only on the footing that there had been a waiver of the policy point by election, coupled with an unequivocal communication of a decision to deal with the Claimant's claim (and thereby, they accepted liability for it, the Judge found).

Court Of Appeal

The Court of Appeal decision contains a very lengthy academic discussion on the doctrine of waiver by election contrasted with waiver by estoppel.

On appeal, Underwriters contended that the Judge had been wrong at trial to rule that a breach of condition precedent was something different to a breach of promissory warranty in the present context.

Underwriters also maintained that their September dealings were not unequivocal and that being seen to 'handle' a claim for a short period of time was not necessarily inconsistent with a repudiation of liability.

The Court of Appeal found for Underwriters on both of those issues.

When tackling these sorts of 'procedural' conditions precedent, the doctrine of election was not appropriate and issues over handling of a claim, or any unequivocal representation that Underwriters accepted liability, should be decided against the backdrop of estoppel (and not election) principles. This is how Lord Justice Rix articulated the point:

"Thus an insurer who begins to deal with a claim, even if, as I will assume for the moment, he thereby represents that he views that claim at that time as being, if good, a matter for indemnity under the policy, is not thereby required for all time to maintain his dealing with or conduct of the claim. He can leave it to his insured to conduct a defence, although he may turn out to be liable at the end of the day to indemnify his insured against both liability and the cost of defending liability. Moreover, he may discover matters which lead him to believe that the claim is not within the policy, and it remains open to him to withdraw his support for it. None of this fits happily with the idea that some dealing with the claim is an irrevocable election to accept liability for it under the policy so far as any procedural defect in it is known to the insurer."

The Court of Appeal went on to find that the September dealings were "far from unequivocal". Was it enough that Underwriters had behaved in a manner that gave the impression they were willing to deal with the claim? On this aspect, the Court of Appeal noted Underwriters had made it clear to Kosmar that – pending Kosmar's reply to their requests for further background information – any decision on liability in respect of the Claimant's claim was going to be deferred. It was also made plain that Kosmar would need to deal with Underwriters' queries before the matter could be moved forward generally.

The Court of Appeal's overview on this can hardly be described as sympathetic to Kosmar, the policyholder:

"Why should Kosmar objectively be justified in thinking that its late notification of a serious claim would be accepted, even though it was in breach of a condition precedent, when Kosmar had not answered [Underwriters] many questions about the incident, and had not begun to address the question which hung in the air – even if it was not specifically asked in writing by [Underwriters] until 30 September – as to why so serious an incident had not been notified for over a year? After all, there was no urgent need for any decision about the consequences of the breach of condition precedent. It is not as though [Underwriters] had even begun in any real sense to have undertaken the conduct of [the Claimant's] claim. No proceedings had yet been issued, and no solicitors had yet been instructed. Nothing had been taken out of Kosmar's hands. On the contrary, [Underwriters] still remained in Kosmar's hands for its understanding of the claim."

The Court of Appeal went on to reject the notion that, at the point of first notification (on 4 September 2003) Underwriters 'knew all they needed to know' to take a point on breach of condition precedent (and that thereafter, they were " the grip of an election if [they] acted inconsistently with a repudiation of the claim ...".

Rather, the fact that Underwriters had asked questions of its policyholder – and that no answers had been provided – demonstrated that Underwriters were "...still in the stage of assimilating the circumstances of the case ..."

Lord Justice Rix then went on to provide some detailed practical guidance, which is set to be regularly cite in future when coverage issues do surface between Underwriters and their policyholders:

"It would not be good practice for insurers to rush to repudiate a claim for late notification, or even to destabilise their relationship with their insured by immediately reserving their position – at a time when they were in any event asking pertinent questions about a claim arising out of an occurrence about which they had long been ignorant in the absence of prompt notification. Insurers traditionally armour themselves with all kinds of conditions precedent, but, in a relationship where there is trust, they are just as likely to forgo their strict rights. If they did not, the conduct of the insurance market might very well undergo considerable adaptation. Legal doctrine should not push insurers into over-hasty reliance on their procedural rights. No explanation for the very late notification of this serious claim had been vouchsafed to [Underwriters] and I do not see why any doctrine such as election which is concerned with maintaining a fair balance between the parties to an insurance should be used to put insurers, who have been kept in ignorance of a serious occurrence for a long period of time, into peril of being forced to accept a claim advanced in breach of condition precedent before they have been put in a position properly to understand the circumstances of the accident and of its late notification."

Lord Justice Rix was quick to apply some limits to this understanding view of Underwriters' position by warning that he:

"... would certainly not like to give the impression that insurers can equivocate for long while giving the plain impression that they are treating the claim as covered by their policy, especially at a time when a decision might be required, without running at least the risk that they will be treated as having waived some requirement of their contract or their right to avoid it. Moreover, there may well be express options given to insurers under their policy for the unguarded exercise of which is simply inconsistent with the right to decline cover."


Insurers can take some comfort from this decision, which appears to call for a more contextual analysis to these sorts of waiver issues. It is clear that, in itself, the asking of relevant questions about new notifications is always an important "first response" to employ. Ordinarily, if one can point to a course of reasonable investigation being started in this way, it will be difficult for policyholders to argue that insurers have somehow waived away their policy rights and entitlements.

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.

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.