UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 18 - 2017

Last Updated: 6 June 2017
Article by Nigel Brook

A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.

Ashfaq v International Insurance Co of Hannover: Court of Appeal considers the meaning of "consumer insurance"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/357.html

When the insured took out a Residential Let Property Insurance Policy in February 2012 with insurers, in order to insure a property which he owned and let out to students, he agreed with a statement referred to in the proposal form that he had not been convicted and did not have any prosecutions pending. In fact, he was awaiting trial for common assault.

The proposal form contained a basis of the contract clause and insurers denied liability on the basis of a breach of warranty (as well as breach of the duty of disclosure and the breach of a condition precedent).

Although basis of the contract clauses ceased to be valid from 6th April 2013 for consumer insurance policies entered into on or after that date by virtue of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (and from 12th August 2016 for non-consumer insurance policies entered into on or after that date by virtue of the Insurance Act 2015), neither of those Acts were in force at the date of the inception of the policy in this case. The Court of Appeal here re-affirmed the position confirmed in Genesis Housing v Liberty (see Weekly Update 36/13) that basis of the contract clauses remain valid and enforceable where the insurance policy was entered into before those two Acts.

After summary judgment was ordered in favour of insurers, the insured appealed, arguing that the judge had erred in failing to appreciate that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR 1999") and the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook ("ICOBS") rules were relevant. Insurers argued that the outcome of the case would have been no different had these been taken into account. The first issue, though, was whether the insured was a "consumer" within the meaning of either UTCCR 1999 or ICOBS.

The Court of Appeal held that he was not.

Reference was made to the Mercantile Court decision of Overy v Paypal [2012], in which it was held that, for the purpose of UTCCR 1999, a party will be acting for purposes outside his trade, business or profession "if, and only if, the purpose is to satisfy the individual's own needs in terms of private consumption" and the business purposes are "negligible or insignificant". ICOBS defines consumer as "any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his trade or profession". It clarifies that if a customer is acting as both a consumer and a commercial customer, he will be a commercial customer.

The Court of Appeal held that it was clear that the purpose of the policy here was related to the insured's trade, namely, the letting of the property to students for rent. The fact that the insured was also a company director made no difference: "A person who takes out a policy covering property bought under a buy to let mortgage is a "commercial customer" for the purposes of classification under ICOBS, and it is neither here nor there that that person may also be a company director of a company whose business is unrelated to property letting or also carrying on any other profession". It also made no difference what type of mortgage the insured had taken out. Nor did the reference to "home" in the quotation convert business insurance into consumer insurance. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

One further point of more general interest in the case, though, was that, in relation to the non-disclosure argument, reference was made to the insurer's underwriting guidelines to support an argument about what the underwriter would have done had she known the relevant facts. She gave evidence that, in accordance with the guidelines, she would have declined the risk. However, the guidelines did not give specific guidance on how to respond in relation to pending prosecutions (although they did give specific guidance in relation to offences involving violence). The judge said that he was prepared to assume that it was arguable that the insurer would in fact have proceeded with the insurance, although it was fanciful to suggest that the pending prosecution would not have been material in relation to the fixing of the premium.

Accordingly, even though pending prosecutions were not expressly referred to in the guidelines, this had plainly been a material misrepresentation, entitling the insurers to avoid the policy.

COMMENT: This case touched on the potential problem of guidelines which are detailed but do not cover every eventuality. There is a risk, where the guidelines are detailed, that a court might find that the factors listed were intended to be exhaustive in relation to what an insurer wanted to know. Here, though, the judge was prepared to accept that it was arguable that the insurance might have still been written, but with a higher premium: in other words, to take into account the guidelines as a guide to determining what the underwriter would have done in relation to a matter not expressly covered in the guidelines. That said, the proposal form had asked about pending convictions, and so indicated that the insurers were interested in the issue.

JC & A Solicitors v Iqbal: Court of Appeal holds that insurers cannot recover fixed costs under the old RTA Protocol where claimant does not advance the claim at Stage 2

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/355.html

The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents ("the RTA Protocol") provides a scheme for settling such claims. It came into effect on 30 April 2010 and was amended with effect from 31 July 2013. This appeal concerns the RTA Protocol in its original form. It is estimated that there are over 400 pending cases which raise the same issue as in this case.

The defendant's insurer admitted liability at Stage 1 and paid the claimant the Stage 1 fixed costs. Stage 2 is designed to facilitate settlement. However, the claimant failed to advance his claim in the manner prescribed for Stage 2 and it eventually became time-barred.  The insurer then sought recovery of the Stage 1 costs. It won at first instance but that decision has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

There is no express provision in either the RTA Protocol or the CPR regarding a right to repayment of Stage 1 costs where the claimant does not pursue the claim after the conclusion of Stage 1. The Court of Appeal held that no such right could be implied either. In reaching that decision, it dismissed fears about what came to be called the "400 Club" point. It was argued that if insurers could not claim repayment, this "might encourage unscrupulous lawyers to seek authority from claimants to commence a Protocol claim simply for the purpose of obtaining £400 + VAT, without any genuine intention of advancing to Stage 2, even in the event of an admission by the defendant's insurers". The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence that this practice had developed in the past and, since the 2013 amendments, Stage 1 costs are now only payable after the submission by the claimant (where liability is admitted) of a Stage 2 Settlement Pack including a medical report.

Noble Caledonian v Air Niugini: Service within the jurisdiction and whether a foreign company had a place in England "where it carries on its activities"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1095.html

Clyde & Co (Alex Stovold and Adam Tozzi) for defendant

Where a defendant has not given an address for service (and no business address of a lawyer in the EEA has been given), CPR r6.9 provides (in relevant part) that service must be made (where the company is not incorporated or registered in England and Wales) at "any place within the jurisdiction where the corporation carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction". If there is no such place, service must be made out of the jurisdiction.

The defendant in this case is a company incorporated under the laws of Papua New Guinea. The claimant sought to argue that it "carried on activities" in England via its agent (FDL) which is based near Gatwick Airport. 

Counsel had informed the judge that there is no prior caselaw on the meaning of "carries on its activities" in the context of CPR r6.9. The judge therefore sought to decide whether the activities of FDL were the defendant's activities, noting that "While an agent may bind his principal, it by no means follows that the business of the agent can be described as that of the principal. An agent need not be an agent for only one principal, but may be an agent for many". 

On the facts of the case, the judge found that the requirements of CPR r6.9 were not satisfied here. The most important factor was to look at context. Here, FDL worked for several principals and was limited in its ability to enter into contracts and deprived of any realistic discretion in terms of pricing or contractual terms. Other factors militating against the claimant's arguments included the fact that the defendant exercised little control over the running of FDL and made no contributions to the financing of FDL's business.

Accordingly, the defendant had to be served out of the jurisdiction.

Bath v Escott: Whether court should order release of the audio recording of a judgment/status of judgments

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/1101.html

The defendant applied for an order that the audio recording of the judgment of a district judge be released, on the basis that the transcript (generated a year later) did not accurately record what was said in court.  The application was rejected, HHJ Matthews making the following points:

(1) An order expresses the court's decision, whereas a judgment only expresses the court's reasons.

(2) It is entirely lawful and proper for a judge to amend the transcript, not only to correct eg spelling mistakes, but also to ensure that the reasons recorded accurately reflect why the decision was made (even if they were not fully articulated before). Furthermore, the judge can also alter even the decision itself when he/she receives the transcript.

(3) The current practice is to reserve judgment and to circulate a draft judgment before handing it down. A judge may alter the draft judgment between circulating it (and receiving comments from the parties) and handing it down.

(4) Even after handing down a judgment, a judge can amend it, and even change the decision, before it is sealed.

Accordingly,  the application was bound to fail. The judge suggested that an application might succeed, though, if an allegation is made "that the statement that the judge had revised and approved the transcript was false, or that although the transcript was so revised and approved it nevertheless did not reflect accurately the judge's reasons for the decision, or that the judge had added to the transcript a new point never previously raised (and which the parties had not been able to comment on), and then decided the case on the new basis.... It would be a high hurdle to overcome, for obvious reasons, but I cannot say that it could never be done".

Findcharm v Churchill: Judge warns against "game playing" and cost budgets/Precedent R

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2017/1108.html

For proceedings issued on or after 6 April 2016, the parties are encouraged to use Precedent R (Budget Discussion Report), when preparing their cost budgets. In this case, Coulson J noted that some parties deliberately put very low figures in their Precedent R in order to encourage the court to calculate its own amount, at a point in between the wildly different sets of figures put forward by both sides (and thus reducing the figure put forward by the other side).

This case was an example of that tactic: the defendant's budget was "on any view, an unrealistically low budget". For example, the claimant estimated that disclosure would cost just below £30,000 (which the judge held was reasonable), whereas the defendant estimated just over £10,000, which was said to be unjustifiability low.

Coulson J described the defendant's Precedent R as an abuse of the cost budgeting process and of no utility. Accordingly, the judge disregarded it (and the budget was agreed by the claimant). The claimant's cost budget was held to be proportionate and reasonable, and so was allowed.

(Re)insurance Weekly Update 18 - 2017

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.