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.'
Blanket Notifications and Declaratory relief: European Risk Insurance Company v McManus
Summary
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of European Risk Insurance Company v McManus [2013] EWCA Civ 1545 upheld the first instance decision which refused to grant declaratory relief in relation to a firm of solicitors' blanket notification of claims to their professional indemnity insurer. The first instance decision also reinforces the position that blanket notifications will be construed in favour of the policyholder (which was not subject of the appeal).Read more
Clark v In Focus: There is only one cherry, and no second bite at it
Summary
Financial advisers across the country will be breathing a sigh of relief as they digest the Court of Appeal’s decision in Clark v In Focus, meanwhile consumers which have suffered losses in excess of the statutory limit of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s scheme have been given a stark warning: by all means accept the Ombudsman’s award, but the Courts will give you no second bite at the same cherry.Read more
Coles v Hetherton: implications for recovery actions
Just before Christmas, the Court of Appeal delivered the long-awaited judgment in the case of Coles v Hetherton [2013] EWCA Civ 1704. As anticipated, its conclusions are likely to have wide-reaching implications for the insurance industry and may impact on every level of case, from the modest county court claims that were the subject matter of Coles itself, to multi-million pound property damage disputes.
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.
Interpretation of combined commercial policy wording
Ted Baker Plc v AXA Insurance UK Plc [2012] EWHC 1406 (Comm)
The claimant clothing retailer discovered that an employee had been stealing stock from its warehouse. The claimant claimed on its commercial combined insurance policy that it held with AXA, for losses during the period of 2004-2008 in relation to loss of stock (£1 million) and losses for consequential loss or business interruption (£3 million).
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.
Unfavourable expert reports – Prohibition on ‘Expert shopping’
Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon [2011] EWCA Civ 136
The claimant suffered an injury as a result of an accident at work, for which the defendant employer admitted liability.
Read more
Keydata Claims
FSCS’s Lifemark action
The FSCS has paid out millions to consumers following the collapse of Keydata in June 2009.
In the last week it has instructed Herbert Smith to send letters to hundreds of IFAs relating to Lifemark products: the Secure Income Bond 4, Secure Income Plan 1 - 12 and Defined Income Plan 1 - 8, requesting early payment of claims. We understand that Herbert Smith will be sending similar letters relating to other products in the coming weeks.
Read more