Fenchurch Law Ltd Move to 40 Lime Street
Please note that from Monday 1st February 2016 Fenchurch Law Ltd will have a new home in the heart of EC3. You can now reach the team at their new offices at 40 Lime Street next to Lloyd's of London.
Fenchurch Law Ltd
40 Lime Street
London
EC3M 7AW
Tel: 020 3058 3070
Fax: 020 3058 3071
DX: 528 London/City
Why not come in and see us in our new home.
Fenchurch Law Grows its Expertise with Insurance Litigation Specialist Hire
Insurance coverage specialists, Fenchurch Law, have announced that John Curran has joined as a partner. John will concentrate on insurance disputes with a particular focus on Energy, Industrial, and Institutional risks.
John joined Fenchurch Law after 20 years at Clifford Chance, and more recently six years at DLA Piper, where he acted for insurers, brokers, and policyholders in disputes arising in the London market and internationally.
As well as acting in insurance disputes, John has extensive experience in advising on insurance wordings and the use of insurance in financial and corporate transactions. John is a qualified as a solicitor in Hong Kong as well as in England, and is a Solicitor Advocate.
"We are delighted that John has agreed to join Fenchurch Law. Adding his expertise and skill is part of a wider objective of improving outcomes for policyholders, and putting policyholders first in everything we do," said David Pryce Managing Partner.
Founded in 2010 Fenchurch Law is a specialist firm of City solicitors. They provide insurance advice, and handle insurance disputes. Based in the iconic Gherkin building in the heart of London Insurance Market, they represent policyholders with complex and high value coverage disputes with their insurers.
Fenchurch Law moves up Legal 500 Rankings
The new Legal 500 rankings have been published and we are pleased to announce that Fenchurch Law has moved up to Tier 2.
"We are very pleased to have improved our ranking in Legal 500. We really appreciate all the support that we’ve had from all our clients and their brokers, and we’re committed to repaying that support with an ever-improving level of service. Our mission is to put policyholders first in everything we do." said David Pryce, Managing Partner.
What the Legal 500 is saying about Fenchurch Law:
Fenchurch Law is a niche firm with ‘strong expertise in acting for policyholders’, providing ‘excellent service and a client-centred approach’. Co-founders David Pryce and Rob Fink head the team, and senior associate [now partner] Daniel Brooks joined the group in April 2014. Pryce ‘comes up with ideas that are intelligent but different; his thinking often delivers unexpectedly good results out of unpromising situations’.
Find our full Legal 500 2015 profile and rankings here:
http://www.legal500.com/c/london/insurance/insurance-litigation-for-policyholders
Founded in 2010 Fenchurch Law is a specialist firm of City solicitors. They provide insurance advice, and handle insurance disputes. Based in the iconic Gherkin building in the heart of London Insurance Market, they represent policyholders with complex and high value coverage disputes with their insurers.
Insurance Coverage Partner joins Fenchurch Law
Insurance coverage specialists, Fenchurch Law, have today announced that Jonathan Corman has joined as a partner.
Jonathan has been an insurance specialist for over 20 years, concentrating primarily on professional indemnity claims, as well construction, EL/PL and D&O. He has fought numerous coverage disputes for London Market insurers over the years, his reported successes including Total Graphics Ltd -v- AGF Insurance Ltd [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 599 and Burgess Wreford & Unsworth -v- Aegon Insurance Co (UK) Ltd LTL 20.7.99 as well as a number of confidential arbitrations.
"We are delighted that Jonathan has agreed to join Fenchurch Law. Recruiting someone with such experience fits perfectly with our objective of improving outcomes for policyholders, and putting policyholders first in everything we do," said David Pryce Managing Partner.
Founded in 2010 Fenchurch Law is a specialist firm of City solicitors. They provide insurance advice, and handle insurance disputes. Based in the iconic Gherkin building in the heart of London Insurance Market, they represent policyholders with complex and high value coverage disputes with their insurers.
Fenchurch Law promotes Daniel Brooks to Associate Partner
Fenchurch Law, the policyholder-focused coverage specialists, have promoted Daniel Brooks to Associate Partner.
Daniel joined Fenchurch Law in 2014 and his work is focused on contentious coverage disputes and uninsured defence work for a broad range of policyholders in the UK.
Daniel has a particular focus on insurance disputes for construction professionals, although Daniel is also instructed in many other sectors involving D&O, Professional Indemnity and Product Liability.
"I would like to congratulate Dan. His promotion is part of a wider plan for our firm and developing our own talented lawyers is critical to achieving our goals," said David Pryce Managing Partner.
Founded in 2010 Fenchurch Law is a specialist firm of City solicitors. They provide insurance advice, and handle insurance disputes. Based in the iconic Gherkin building in the heart of London Insurance Market, they represent policyholders with complex and high value coverage disputes with their insurers.
Fenchurch Law Ltd shortlisted for Insurance Law Firm of the Year Award.
Fenchurch Law Ltd has been shortlisted for the Insurance Law Firm of the Year in the prestigious Claims Awards 2015, which celebrate excellence and innovation in the general insurance claims sector.
The Insurance Law Firm of the Year Award recognises technical ability and the application of innovative ideas and customer service within legal services.
Managing Partner David Pryce commented: “We are very pleased to have been shortlisted for this award. Since founding Fenchurch Law in 2010, our aim has not only been to lead the market for complex policyholder coverage disputes in the UK but also to innovate in the interests of the policyholder and broker. Over the last 12 months we have put in place a number of unique funding arrangements for policyholders across the UK and secured over £9million in payments from insurers.”
Final winners will be announced at The Claims Awards evening at the Royal Garden Hotel in London on the 4th June.
Privy Council finds that a policyholder’s alteration of invoices submitted in support of an insurance claim did not constitute a “fraudulent device”
The case of Beacon Insurance Company Ltd v Maharaj Bookstore Ltd [2014] UKPC21 concerned an insurance claim arising from a fire and the insurance company’s rejection of that claim on the ground that part of it had involved fraudulent devices.
A fire at Marahaj’s premises had destroyed stock worth in the region of $750,000.00 Insurers refused indemnity on the basis that some of the invoices submitted in support of the insurance claim had been altered by the policyholder (the policy included an express condition that all benefit under the policy would be forfeit if any fraudulent means or device was used by the policyholder).
The trial judge accepted that the policyholder had altered certain invoices, but that the alterations had not been made for any fraudulent purpose or with any fraudulent intention. Rather that the stock in question had genuinely been purchased by the insured. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the insurers, and the Privy Council has now overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and reinstated the first instance decision in the policyholder’s favour.
In reaching its decision the Court emphasised that in the leading case on fraudulent devices (Agapitos v Agnew [2003] QB 556) it was made clear that a fraudulent device requires not only an intention that an action will improve the policyholder’s position in relation to the processing of a claim, but also that the policyholder’s intention is dishonest. As quoted by the Privy Council from the judgment of Mance LJ in Agapitos:
“a fraudulent device is used if the insured believes that he has suffered the loss claimed but seeks to improve or embellish the facts surrounding the claim by some lie (the Board’s emphasis).”
The Privy Council found that the Judge at first instance had been entitled to decide that the policyholder’s alteration of invoices submitted to the insurer was free of any dishonest intent. In the words of the Privy Council:
“while foolish, such tampering was far from conclusive evidence of dishonesty on [the policyholder’s] part”.
David Pryce comments on the case:
'Insurance law is technical and often counter intuitive. However, underpinning it is the basic principle that insurers should pay, promptly and in full, genuine claims made by honest policyholders. It is sometimes easy to forget that the technicalities and complexities of insurance law are all designed to meet that simple principle. This decision is another in an increasingly long line which show the Courts taking a pragmatic and flexible approach in order to keep that principle in the foreground where it belongs.'
Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013
On 23.01.2013 the Ministry of Justice published the draft Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“2013 Regulations”). These regulations will come into force on 1st April this year. The implementation of the regulations will allow for “contingency fee agreements” across all types of contentious litigation.
Contradictory High Court decisions on the doctrine of merger
Clark v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Limited [2012] EWHC 3669 (QB)
The claimants had invested the proceeds of sale of a family business in a geared traded endowment plan, after taking advice from the defendant Financial Services Company. It transpired that the advice was negligent and led to the claimants losing over £500,000.
High Court decision on the consequences of failing to undertake adequate e-disclosure
West African Gas Pipeline Company Limited v. Willbros Global Holdings Inc [2012] EWHC 396 (TCC)
The claimant company hired a contractor to carry out construction work on a natural gas pipeline in West Africa. The defendant company had provided a guarantee in relation to the contract. The contract was terminated prior to completion of the works, and the claimant issued proceedings under the guarantee seeking payment of the additional costs of completing the pipeline.