Fenchurch Law – Annual Coverage Review 2025

As the insurance market continues to navigate evolving risks, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical developments, 2025 has delivered a series of judgments that set important precedents as well as reaffirming established coverage principles. This annual review highlights the key themes emerging from these decisions and their practical implications for those responsible for managing coverage and compliance.

The cases reported this year address critical issues such as the interpretation of policy terms, the scope of notification obligations, the application of fair presentation duties and the classification of policy terms under the Insurance Act 2015. They also explore the impact of third-party rights, insolvency considerations, and principles regarding multiple cover when ‘other insurance’ clauses are in play.

Collectively, these rulings clarify the boundaries of contractual and statutory duties, reinforce the importance of timely and accurate disclosures, and provide guidance on maintaining coverage integrity in complex scenarios.

This round-up aims to equip policyholders and brokers with a clear understanding of the legal trends shaping the insurance landscape, including salutary reminders and pitfalls to avoid.

Unless otherwise stated, the Insurance Act 2015 is referred to as the “2015 Act” and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 as the “2010 Act”.

Insurance Act 2015

1. Lonham Group Ltd v Scotbeef Ltd & DS Storage Ltd (in liquidation) (05 March 2025)

In this Judgment, the Court of Appeal issued seminal guidance on how the 2015 Act treats representations, warranties, and conditions precedent. The Court was asked to determine whether the requirements under a Duty of Assured clause were representations or conditions precedent and thus triggering different sections of the 2015 Act.

The policy contained a three‑limb “Duty of Assured Clause” requiring D&S to:

1. Declare all current trading conditions at policy inception.
2. Continuously trade under those conditions.
3. Take all reasonable steps to ensure those conditions were incorporated into all contracts.

The Court was asked to consider whether all three limbs needed to be read collectively (i.e. they would all be classified as either representations or conditions/warranties) or separately (so that each limb was capable of a separate classification). Overturning the decision of the High Court, the Court found that limb 1 was a pre-contractual representation subject to the duty of fair presentation of the 2015 Act, but limbs 2 and 3 were warranties and conditions precedent. As such, in accordance with the 2015 Act, the Insurer had no liability after the date on which the warranty had been breached.

This classification was said to reflect the 2015 Act’s intent: representations allow for proportionate remedies if inaccurate; terms requiring future conduct held to be warranties and/or conditions, by contrast, enable insurers to reject coverage upon breach, provided the terms are clearly drafted.

This decision marked the first major Court of Appeal test of Part 3 of the 2015 Act, and confirms that Duty of Assured clauses can contain both historic representations that go to the Insured’s duty of fair presentation, and warranties as to future conduct, which can have particularly catastrophic consequences if breached. It serves as a reminder to Policyholders and Brokers to scrutinise policy terms and ensure compliance.

Read our full article here.

2. Clarendon v Zurich [2025] EWHC 267 (Comm) – Commercial Court Judgment (13 February 2025)

Fenchurch Law acted for Clarendon Dental Spa LLP and Clarendon Dental Spa (Leeds) Ltd, who claimed under a Zurich property damage and business interruption policy after a major fire. Zurich sought to avoid liability, alleging breach of the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act for failing to disclose insolvency of related entities.

The Court examined Zurich’s proposal question, “Have you or any partners, directors or family members involved in the business… been declared bankrupt or insolvent…?,” and held that a reasonable policyholder would interpret it as referring only to current directors or partners, not former entities. Consistent with Ristorante Ltd v Zurich (2021), and applying contra proferentem, the Court confirmed that ambiguity in insurer questions is resolved in favour of the insured and that disclosure obligations are shaped by the questions asked at inception.

Overall, the Court concluded Clarendon’s answers were correct and, in any event, Zurich had waived any right to disclosure beyond the scope of its own questions.

Please see our full article here.

3. Delos Shipholding v Allianz [2025] EWCA Civ 1019

The Court of Appeal upheld the earlier Commercial Court’s ruling, reinforcing policyholder rights under marine war risks insurance and clarifying the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act. The case concerned the bulk carrier WIN WIN, detained by Indonesian authorities for over a year after a minor anchoring infraction. Allianz denied cover, citing an exclusion for detentions under customs or quarantine regulations and alleging non-disclosure of criminal charges against a nominee director.

The Court confirmed the exclusion must be construed narrowly, only detentions genuinely akin to customs or quarantine regulations fall within its scope and the WIN WIN’s detention did not qualify. It also reaffirmed that fortuity remains where the insured’s actions were neither voluntary nor intended to cause the loss. On duty of fair presentation, the Court held the nominee director (who had no decision-making authority) was not part of “senior management” under the 2015 Act, so the Policyholder had no actual or constructive knowledge of criminal charges against him. Further, Allianz had failed to prove that the charges were material and would have induced Allianz to enter into the insurance contract.

Our article on the Court of Appeal Judgment can be found here. Our earlier article on the Judgment of first instance is also here.

4. Mode Management Limited v Axa Insurance UK PLC [2025] EWHC 2025 (Comm)

Following a fire on 7 February 2018 at industrial units in Brentwood, Mode (the named insured) and its director (the property owner) sued AXA under a “Property Investor’s Protection Plan” seeking declaratory relief, specific performance (to reinstate/put them back to the pre‑loss position), and other remedies. AXA had avoided the policy ab initio in September 2018 for alleged misrepresentation/non‑disclosure (including questions over insurable interest and planning permission) and applied for summary judgment.

The Commercial Court (Lesley Anderson KC sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) granted AXA’s application. The judge held that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and in any event had no real prospect of success, including the insured’s bid for specific performance of AXA’s alleged secondary liability to reinstate.

The director’s personal claim also failed because he was not a party insured under the policy. The Court emphasised that, on the pleaded facts and policy wording, specific performance was not an available remedy, and the case could be resolved without a trial.

The Judgment can be accessed here.

5. Malhotra Leisure Ltd v Aviva [2025] EWHC

During the Covid-19 lockdown in July 2020, a cold-water storage tank burst at one of Malhotra’s hotels, causing significant damage. Aviva, the property damage and business interruption insurer, refused indemnity, alleging the escape of water was deliberately and dishonestly induced by the claimant and that there were associated breaches of the policy’s fraud condition.

The Commercial Court held that Aviva bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident was intentional. The Court found that available plumbing and expert evidence supported an accidental explanation, and Aviva’s own expert accepted the escape could have been fortuitous.

The Court also scrutinised Aviva’s allegations of dishonesty in the presentation of the claim, finding that the Fraud Condition must be interpreted in line with the common law, meaning it applies only to dishonest collateral lies that materially support the claim, consistent with The Aegeon and Versloot. Because there was no evidence of dishonesty, and the alleged inaccuracies were either immaterial or inadvertent, the fraud condition did not bite, and Malhotra Leisure was entitled to indemnity.

Please see our full article here.

In a separate costs hearing, the Commercial Court was asked to determine whether costs should be awarded on the standard or indemnity basis. The claimant’s approved costs budget was £546,730.50, but actual costs exceeded £1.2 million, making the distinction significant.

The Court noted that while there is no presumption in favour of indemnity costs where fraud allegations fail, such allegations are of the highest seriousness and, if unsuccessful, will often justify indemnity costs. The Judge found that Aviva’s allegations inflicted financial and reputational harm and were pursued to trial without settlement discussions. As a result, the Court ordered Aviva to pay the claimant’s costs on the indemnity basis, including an interim payment of £660,000, demonstrating the Court’s uncompromising approach towards unfounded fraud allegations.

Please see our full article here.

Effect of Third Parties Rights against Insurers Act 2010

7. Makin v QBE [2025] EWHC 895 (KB), Archer v Riverstone [2025] EWHC 1342 (KB), and Ahmed & Ors v White & Co & Allianz [2025] EWHC 2399 (Comm)

This trio of cases highlights the strict approach taken to claims notification provisions in liability insurance policies alongside their impact under the 2010 Act and reaffirms that Claimants under the 2010 Act will have to suffer the consequences of a policyholders breach of conditions.

The Courts confirmed that third-party claimants inherit not only the insured’s rights but also its contractual obligations. Notification clauses were treated as conditions precedent, even where not expressly labelled as such, meaning a breach of these provisions entitled insurers to deny indemnity.

In Makin, Protec Security delayed notifying QBE for three years after an incident that ultimately led to catastrophic injury. The Court held that the obligation to notify arose once Protec reasonably appreciated potential liability which was well before formal proceedings. Ultimately, failure to comply barred recovery.

Similarly, in Archer, R’N’F Catering failed to notify Riverstone promptly and ignored repeated requests for information. The Court rejected arguments that the claimant’s later cooperation could cure the insured’s breach, confirming that rights lost by the insured cannot be revived under the 2010 Act.

Both judgments emphasise that the trigger for notification is not the incident itself but the point at which the insured knows a claim may arise. Excuses such as administrative errors (argument that relevant correspondence had been sent to a spam folder) or insolvency were given short shrift.

By contrast, Ahmed focused on whether notifications made by White & Co to Allianz were sufficiently clear to trigger coverage under a professional indemnity policy. Despite extensive correspondence, the Court found none of the notifications adequately identified the claims or potential liabilities intended to be covered. The judgment underscores that compliance is not just about timing but also clarity and substance, vague or incomplete notices may fail to engage the policy.

The case also illustrates how technical drafting, such as aggregation clauses and endorsements, can compound the consequences of inadequate notification, limiting recovery even where coverage might otherwise apply.

These decisions reinforce several key points for policyholders and claimants:

1. Notification clauses, even if unlabelled, may operate as conditions precedent.
2. Breaches by the insured cannot be remedied by third-party claimants under the 2010 Act.
3. Both timing and clarity of notifications are critical; “can of worms” notifications must be explicit.
4. Failure to comply can result in catastrophic loss of indemnity, regardless of claim severity.

Policyholders, with their Brokers’ assistance, should adopt a proactive and precise approach to claims notification to avoid disputes and preserve coverage.

Please see our full article on Ahmed here.

The full Judgment on Ahmed is available here.

Aviation

8. Russian Aircraft Lessor Policy Claims [2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm).

In a landmark Judgment handed down on 30 June 2025, the Commercial Court determined coverage disputes arising from the grounding and expropriation of hundreds of Western leased aircraft in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and the imposition of Russian Order 311 in March 2022. The claims, brought by a consortium of lessors including AerCap, DAE, Falcon, KDAC, Merx and Genesis, were the subject of a “mega trial” and resulted in the largest ever insurance award by the UK courts of over £809 million.

The Court held that Contingent Cover responded because the aircraft were not in the lessors’ physical possession and operator policy claims remained unpaid (interpreting, “not indemnified” as “not paid”). Applying a balance of probabilities standard, permanent deprivation was deemed to occur on 10 March 2022, with Russian Order 311 identified as the proximate cause amounting to an effective governmental restraint. This amounted to governmental “restraint” or “detention,” which fell within the Government Peril exclusion under the All-Risks section. Under the Wayne Tank principle, where there are concurrent causes, one covered and one excluded, the exclusion prevails, meaning All Risks could not respond. Consequently, the claims were covered under the War Risks section.

The biggest takeaway for Policyholders from this case, is the guidance that Mr Justice Butcher adopted from the Australian case of LCA Marrickville Pty Limited v Swiss Re International SE [2022] FCAFC 17, which held that:

“The ease with which an insured may establish matters relevant to its claim for indemnity may influence questions of construction … a construction which advances the purpose of the cover is to be preferred to one that hinders it as a factor in construing the policies.”

Please see our full article here.

Building Safety Act 1972

9. URS Corporation Ltd (Appellant) v BDW Trading Ltd (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 21

In summary, BDW (being the relevant developer) sued URS (being the design engineers) in negligence for repair costs from structural defects in two development schemes. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether such voluntarily incurred cost was recoverable and whether section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) extends limitation for such claims.

The Supreme Court unanimously found that once developer knows that defects are attributable to negligent design then remedial works – even on property no longer owned by it – are not ‘voluntary’ in the sense they fall within the ambit of the engineers’ duty. This fortifies the existing common law principles that loss incurred in reliance on professional duty is recoverable, even absent a direct proprietary interest.

The Court clarified that section 135 of the BSA merely extends time for Defective Premises Act 1972 claims and does not revive or extend limitation periods for tortious claims. Policyholders should note that professional indemnity insurers need not cover historic negligence where properly time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, unless otherwise endorsed.

The Court also held that section 135 of the BSA does not permit developers to treat their negligent repair costs as falling within extended timeframes, preserving clear statutory boundaries between contract/statutory claims and tort claims.

Read our full article on the Supreme Court’s Judgment here.

CAR Policies

10. Sky UK Limited & Mace Limited v Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1567

Insurers sought permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s December 2024 decision in Sky v Riverstone ([2024] EWCA Civ 1567), which confirmed that deterioration and development damage occurring after the policy period, but stemming from damage during it, was covered under the CAR policy, along with investigation costs and a single deductible per event.

On 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, leaving the Court of Appeal’s ruling intact. This outcome reinforces that insurers cannot restrict recovery to damage physically present at the end of the policy period and affirms a practical approach to progressive damage under CAR policies.

Overall, the refusal cements the Court of Appeal’s interpretation, providing certainty for policyholders on coverage for post-expiry deterioration linked to insured-period damage.

Our article on the Court of Appeal ruling, now confirmed by the Supreme Court’s dismissal is found here.

Latent Defects

11. National House Building Council v Peabody Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 932 (CA)

The Court of Appeal resolved a key limitation question over NHBC Buildmark insurance’s “Option 1 – Insolvency cover before practical completion.” Under this extension, insurance is triggered not by the contractor’s insolvency per se but when the employer (Peabody) “has to pay more” to complete the homes because of the insolvency.

The underlying development involved 175 dwellings, including 88 social housing units. The contractor became insolvent in June 2016, and Peabody arranged for completion thereafter, with practical completion in January 2021. The claim for additional completion costs was brought in July 2023. NHBC contended that the cause of action accrued in 2016, when the contractor became insolvent, and was now statute-barred; Peabody argued instead that it accrued when costs were actually incurred.

The Court unanimously agreed with Peabody, affirming the Technology & Construction Court’s view that the policy insured against additional payment triggered by insolvency, so the cause of action only accrued when extra costs became payable. The NHBC appeal was dismissed.

This decision emphasises the importance of carefully identifying the insured event as defined in policy terms and confirms that policies with “pay-when-loss-incurred” triggers should be interpreted on their true wording rather than conventional accrual rules.

The Judgment can be found here.

Other Insurance

12. Watford Community Housing Trust v Arthur J Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd

This Judgment was a significant ruling clarifying principles concerning multiple cover and a policyholder’s rights following a cyber-related loss. It was a resounding win for policyholders: securing sequential access to multiple policies.

The Court held that Watford had the right to choose which policies to invoke, having the benefit of PI, Cyber and Combined policies, attracting limits of £5 million, £1 million, and £5 million, respectively. Timely notification was made under the Cyber policy, but late notification was successfully raised by the PI insurer to decline indemnity. The Combined insurer confirmed cover despite late notification.

The Court held that the “other insurance” clauses (limiting cover where overlapping insurance exists) effectively neutralised each other, allowing sequential claims rather than enforcing contribution across overlapping policies. This ruling supports the principle that a policyholder can access each policy in turn until the total loss is covered. Having recovered £6 million, Watford also sought recovery of the additional £5 million under the PI policy had timely notification been made. Consequently, Watford was entitled to a total of £11 million.

As to broker liability, the Court found that, but for the broker’s negligence, the PI policy would have been exhausted. Since it was not, the broker was held liable for the £5 million shortfall. The Judgment is a stark reminder that notification conditions should be identified and complied with. It also emphasises a broker’s duty to accurately advise on policy layers and limitations to ensure the policyholder is clearly instructed and that the advice given is documented.

Our full article can be found here.

Authors

Dan Robin, Managing Partner

Catrin Wyn Williams, Associate

Pawinder Manak, Trainee Solicitor