When does time begin to run when an insurer refuses indemnity under a third party liability policy?
William McIlroy Swindon Ltd, Rannoch Investments Ltd v Quinn Insurance Ltd
[2011] EWCA Civ 825
Quinn Insurance Limited (“the Insurer”) provided public liability insurance to one of the Claimants’ sub-contractors (“the Policyholder”). The Policyholder was sued by the Claimants in relation to a fire which occurred in 2006, and the Insurer refused indemnity under the public liability cover in February 2009 alleging that the Policyholder had been in breach of certain policy conditions.
Court of Appeal decision on CFA success fees
Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2010] EWCA Civ 194
The Claimant suffered subsidence damage to his property caused by the roots of a tree which was owned by the Defendant. The Claimant claimed on his house insurance policy for the damage, and his insurer provided him with a full indemnity. The insurer then proceeded to exercise its right of subrogation and instructed a firm of solicitors who were to work under a collective conditional fee agreement.
High Court decision on solicitors' undertakings
Halliwells LLP v NES Solicitors and Quinn Insurance [2011] EWHC 947
NES was approached by a new, apparently wealthy, client and asked to provide an undertaking to pay Halliwells £1.5 million as part of a share purchase agreement. The client provided a “gold delivery certificate” purported to be worth £10 million. The partners of NES, in reliance on the certificate, but knowing the funds had not cleared, provided the undertaking. The certificate was later found to be worthless.
Immunity of expert witnesses
In Stanton v Callaghan [1998] EWCA Civ 1176, it was held that the immunity of an expert witness extended to protect him from liability for negligence in preparing a joint statement for use in legal proceedings. This rule was designed to ensure that witnesses were not deterred from giving evidence in court due the risk of later allegations of negligence.
ECHR decision on Conditional Fee Agreements
In February 2001, the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper (‘MGN’) was sued by Naomi Campbell for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. At first instance, Ms Campbell was successful. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in 2004 and subsequently, the House of Lords (as it then was) reinstated the first instance decision and Ms Campbell was awarded £3,500 in damages.
Court of Appeal decision on the “date of knowledge” under s14A Limitation Act 1980
In personal injury cases proceedings must be issued at court within 3 years of the date on which the injury occurred or, if later (for instance, where the injury is latent), within 3 years of the date that the injured person had the knowledge required in order to bring the claim (s.14A Limitation Act 1980).
Concurrent Evidence for Expert Witnesses
This firm has made clear that it supports those parts of Lord Justice Jackson's review of civil litigation costs ("the Jackson Report") that are aimed at reducing the cost of civil litigation as a whole, whilst opposing those parts of the Jackson Report that are aimed at shifting the burden of what costs remain from defendants on to claimants (see our comments at: http://tinyurl.com/2elzb39).
10 things you need to know about the law
1. If you have a small claim against a financial services professional:
Financial Ombudsman Service: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Part XVI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000008_en_19#pt16
2. If your insurer refuses a claim unfairly:
Chapter 8 of the FSA’s Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook: www.fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1
3. If you have a claim for less than £5,000:
The Small Claims Court: www.hrothgar.co.uk/YAWS/framecpr/part27.htm
4. If your employer has treated you unfairly:
Employment Tribunal: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041861.htm#sch1
5. If you’ve bought something that doesn’t do what it says on the tin:
Unfair Contract Terms Act: www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1#pt1-ch1-pb4-l1g9
6. If you’re being strong-armed by someone who’s provided you with a poor service:
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19943159_en_1.htm
7. If you need free general advice:
Citizens’ Advice Bureau advice Guides: www.adviceguide.org.uk/
8. If they can’t help, try Delia Venables’ really useful website: www.venables.co.uk/individualorg.htm
9. If you want to find a solicitor to make a claim:
Professional negligence: www.fenchurchlaw.co.uk
Insurance: www.fenchurchlaw.co.uk
Commercial disputes: www.fenchurchlaw.co.uk
Employment: www.josephsuttonsolicitors.com
Personal injury & clinical negligence: www.priceandslater.co.uk
10. When all is lost and you just need a good laugh: www.buglear-bate.co.uk
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010
The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which received Royal Assent on 25.03.2010 has amended previous legislation governing the relationship between insurers and claimants. Its intention is to make it easier, quicker and cheaper to make a claim against the insurers of insolvent defendants.
The previous Act required a claimant to establish an insolvent defendant’s liability before being able to pursue a claim against insurers. This meant issuing proceedings against the defendant before being able to issue (separate) proceedings against the insurer. The 2010 Act now allows claimants to issue proceedings directly against the insurer in which all issues, including the defendant’s liability, can be established.
Insurers are now no longer entitled to rely on conditions in the policy made impossible by the insured’s insolvency or terms which render the policy ineffective due to the insured’s insolvency. The insurer is still though entitled to rely on defences against the claimant which it could have used against its own insured.
Financial Services Act 2010 - class actions removed
The Financial Services Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 08.04.2010, being amongst the last few pieces of legislation rushed through parliament before it was dissolved.
One of the most interesting and controversial parts of the bill had been the introduction of collective actions for consumers allowing them to bring American style class actions against financial services firms, including banks and insurers as well as smaller firms providing financial advice.
However, these proposals received stiff opposition from Tory peers and the government dropped the measures in order to see the bill through parliament.
What has been included in the Act though is an amendment to previous legislation which now allows the FSA to draw up consumer redress schemes where it considers there has been "widespread or regular failure" from financial services firms and that as a result consumers have lost, or may lose, money. Previously such schemes had to be approved by the Treasury before being implemented.
Appetite remains high amongst the Labour party though for such class actions and redress schemes and it has been suggested that the proposals would be looked at again in the new parliament. How they would fare in an increasingly likely hung parliament is difficult to predict though.