UK: Avondale Exhibitions Limited v Arthur J Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited [2018] EWHC 1311 (QB): The Extent Of A Broker's Duty To Advise An Insured About Disclosure Of Material Facts

Last Updated: 6 June 2018
Article by Katie Powell

Avondale Exhibitions v Arthur J Gallagher concerned a claim by a company against its insurance broker arising from an insurer's decision to decline cover.

In giving judgment for the defendant insurance broker, HHJ Keyser Q.C. (i) endorsed the statements of David Steel J in Jones v Environcom Limited [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm) and Flaux Jin Synergy Health (UK) Limited v CGU Insurance Plc [2010] EWHC 2583 (Comm) as to the scope of an insurance broker's duties, and (ii) held that the lack of expert evidence significantly limited, albeit did not altogether exclude, the possibility of a finding that the insurance broker had acted in breach of its duty to exercise reasonable skill and care.

Clare Dixon of 4 New Square, instructed by Simmons & Simmons, successfully represented Arthur J Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited. The decision is considered by Katie Powell of 4 New Square.


The claimant company ("Avondale") was run and owned by Mr Watkins and his wife. The defendant insurance broker (referred to in the judgment by its previous name, "Giles") had arranged a policy of Commercial Combined insurance for Avondale since 2007 and for the years 2010/2011, 2011/12 and 2012/13 with QBE Insurance ("QBE").

On 26 August 2012, there was a fire at Avondale's business premises, causing serious damage to the premises and destroying trading stock. Avondale made a claim under the Commercial Combined policy for the year 2012/13. Following investigations, QBE declined cover and avoided the policies for 2010/2011, 2011/12 and 2012/13 on the grounds that Avondale had failed to disclose two criminal convictions of Mr Watkins. It was common ground between the parties that QBE was entitled to decline cover and avoid the policies on this basis.

Avondale advanced two cases against Giles:

  1. Avondale's primary case was that it had informed Giles of the convictions and that Giles was in breach of its duty of care in failing to pass on the information to QBE. Giles disputed that it had been told of the convictions. However, Giles accepted that, if it had been, it would have been a breach of duty on its part to fail to pass on this information to QBE.
  2. Avondale's secondary case was that, regardless of whether or not it did inform Giles of the convictions, Giles was in breach of its duty of care in failing to take proper steps to bring to its attention the importance of making the necessary disclosure and to elicit the relevant information. In response, Giles maintained that it had discharged its duties and made sufficiently clear what was required of Avondale by way of disclosure.


Issue 1: Was Giles told of Mr Watkins' convictions?

This was a dispute of fact. The Judge preferred Giles' evidence on whether it had been told of Mr Watkins' convictions, holding that, contrary to Mr and Mrs Watkins evidence, neither told Giles of Mr Watkins' convictions. Giles' case was substantially assisted in this regard by the sheer number of proposal forms and other documents that Mr and Mrs Watkins had signed (both in relation to the Commercial Combined insurance policy and in relation to separate motor insurance policies) in which they had wrongly endorsed statements to the effect that Mr Watkins had no convictions and (in relation to the motor insurance policies) no fixed penalties. In this context, it was perhaps unsurprising that the Judge (i) was unconvinced by Mr and Mrs Watkins' explanation that they had happily signed these numerous documents, oblivious to the declarations contained within them, and (ii) when forced to choose between conflicting accounts about what was alleged to have been said in the course of oral exchanges, preferred Giles' evidence on these points.

It followed that Avondale's primary case failed on the facts.

Issue 2: Was Giles in breach of its duty of care in failing to take proper steps to bring to Avondale's attention the importance of making the necessary disclosure to elicit the relevant information?

In considering the scope of Giles' duty in this regard, the Judge cited and adopted the obiter statements of David Steel J in Jones v Environcom and of Flaux J in Synergy Health v CGU Insurance. He also endorsed the statement in Simpson, Professional Negligence and Liability to the effect that there is no general rule about whether specific oral advice as to material disclosure must be given or whether a specific enquiry regarding a material piece of information must be made: "[t]he adequacy of communication ought to be assessed on a case-by-case basis".

Hence the Judge went on to consider the case on its facts.

  1. The Judge observed that no expert evidence had been advanced by Avondale to support its case on breach of duty. Whilst the lack of expert evidence did not "altogether exclude... the possibility of a finding that Giles's conduct was such as to constitute a breach", it significantly limited the possibility of such findings. Hence the decision by Avondale to ask the court to find that Giles fell below the requisite standard without adducing any expert evidence as to the standards in that profession was "striking and significant".
  2. Whilst Avondale had placed reliance on Mr Watkins' lack of sophistication, and it was true that Mr Watkins did not "give the impression of peculiar intelligence or education or of unusual business acumen", the Judge was not inclined to place particular weight on this argument; there was nothing to suggest that Mr Watkins "was not as savvy as an ordinary businessman" and Mr Watkins gave "every impression of having paid more attention to the detail of his insurances than he was willing to admit in evidence."
  3. The Judge was also unimpressed by Avondale's argument that "the sheer bulk of documentation" provided by Giles made it unreasonable to expect Avondale to read and appreciate the relevant documents. The Judge noted that the material paperwork was "both limited in amount and clearly highlighted" and that Giles "identified specific documentation and made clear the need to check the accuracy of the information provided to the insurers."
  4. Finally, the judge did not consider that Avondale's attempt to identify particular occasions when specific oral enquires or advice should have been given improved Avondale's case. He noted that every engagement of a broker has an initial occasion of contact and other potential triggers for specific advice to be given. The question was whether, on the facts, the specific duty contended for arose. In his view, no such duty did arise.


The Judge therefore dismissed Avondale's claim in its entirety.


Whilst the judgment is primarily concerned with disputes of fact, it has significance on three broader bases:

First, the obiter statements of David Steel J in Jones v Environcom and of Flaux J in Synergy Health v CGU Insurance as to the scope of a broker's duties form part of the ratio of the Judge's decision in this case (albeit that it appears to have been common ground that the obiter statements correctly reflected the law). These statements are likely to prove difficult to challenge in future.

Second, the Judge's careful analysis of the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to Avondale's reliance on the "sheer bulk of documentation" sent by Giles and Mr Watkins' lack of sophistication, show how fact specific each case is. Stock arguments frequently deployed in claims against insurance brokers cannot be relied upon to survive judicial scrutiny without careful regard and tailoring to the facts of the case.

Third, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of obtaining expert evidence to support claims for breach of duty against insurance brokers. Approving a passage in Jackson & Powell that had been cited by Coulson J in Pantelli Associates v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189), the Judge observed that only cases where "the practice or conduct complained of has no rational basis or is so obviously unsupportable as to require no such evidence for it to be found to be negligent" were likely to justify a finding of breach of duty without expert evidence. Henceforth, and in the absence of an overwhelming factual case, it will be a bold claimant who seeks to establish liability against an insurance broker without expert evidence.

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
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions