In a precedent setting judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Inc & Another v Gajjar NO  ZASCA 169 (1 December 2017) pronounced on the principles applicable in respect of assessment of contractual damages arising from breach of mandate by an attorney. The court had to determine at what date
The classification of index and unit linked policies as insurance or financial products continues to be debated in Italy, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision no. 6061 of 18 April 2012. The issue arises from the enactment of Law no. 262/2005 – entered into force on 25 January 2007 -, which extended the application of the
Be aware of drafting (or seeking to interpret) a contractual indemnity provision in isolation. Appreciating the wider contractual context will avoid surprises. The Supreme Court has held that the indemnity clause in an SPA did not operate to indemnify the buyer of an insurance broker against compensation paid to customers as a result of mis-selling.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment in AIG Europe Limited v Woodman and others UKSC 2016/0100, ruling on how claims arising from similar acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions should be aggregated for the purposes of a per claim limit. The court held that whilst
The Supreme Court published two judgments on how dishonesty affects insurance claims before the end of the most recent Trinity term: Hayward (Respondent) v Zurich Insurance Company plc (Appellant)  UKSC 48 and Versloot Dredging BV and another (Appellants) v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others (Respondents) UKSC 2014/0252 (The Merwestone). The factual background
Yes – to an extent. In the case of Versloot Dredging BV and another (Appellants) v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others (Respondents) UKSC 2014/0252 (The Merwestone), the Supreme Court held that lies made in respect of facts which are immaterial to the Insured’s right to recover do not invalidate the claim that they
Imagine that your client has filed a straightforward motion that is critical to its position. Then imagine that the judge hearing the motion is involved in personal litigation where he is facing the same issue and arguing exactly what your opponent is arguing. Then imagine that the judge has not bothered to disclose the fact
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime  UKSC 18 In the culmination of a test case on the extent of local police authorities’ statutory liability to compensate victims of riot (“Victims“), the Supreme Court (the “UKSC“) has held, unanimously, that consequential losses are not recoverable from the police.
EWART CHARLES LEGG & 6 ORS v (1) STERTE GARAGE LTD (2) AVIVA UK LTD (2016)  EWCA Civ 97 Court of Appeal. Judgement handed down on 23/02/2016 A recent Court of Appeal judgment serves as a reminder that if, part way through proceedings, insurers refuse coverage (where they had previously agreed cover and had
Last 11 January 2016 Central Examining Court no. 3 (“Juzgado Central de Instrucción nº 3”) decided that in case of crimes that can only be committed intentionally, the D&O policy could guarantee the indemnities to be paid to third parties, but it will never guarantee the damages suffered by the own policyholder due to the
One of the main reasons (probably the most important one) when taking out D&O policies worldwide is to get an insurance cover of the legal defense expenses that the insured can face in case that any claim is filed against them. In Spain, apart from the legal defense costs cover, it is also very important,
2015 saw some interesting judgments dealing with jurisdictional questions of relevance to the insurance market. In this article we look at two of these. Where will we be sued? Jurisdictional uncertainty for insurers and insureds In Mapfre and another v Keefe, the Court of Appeal considered whether the English court had jurisdiction over a direct
It happens all too often, or at least it feels like it does. Your client is named as a defendant in a case that you know has no merit. You tell the plaintiff that they have no case and, after they ignore you, you move to dismiss. But low pleading thresholds, broad allegations and some
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision in Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States of America, that the U.S. federal excise tax (“FET”), sometimes referred to as the “cascading” FET, does not apply to retrocessions between two non-U.S. reinsurers even if the underlying
The Supreme Court yesterday overturned the Court of Appeal‘s judgment in Zurich Insurance PLC UK Branch v International Energy Group Limited  UKSC 33. This case dealt with the law in Guernsey on exposure to asbestos where there is no equivalent to the Compensation Act 2006. The case concerned whether an insurer is liable to
The Washington State Supreme Court today issued its en banc opinion in McCarthy Finance, Inc. et al. v. Premera et al., WA S. Ct. Case No. 90533-9. The Court held that Washington law does apply the filed rate doctrine in the insurance context, and that the doctrine bars actions that would require a court to
The High Court has held (in the recent case of AmTrust Europe Limited v Trust Risk Group SpA  EWHC 4169 (Comm)) that it had jurisdiction – despite there being competing exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration clauses – to grant an injunction requiring a broker to replace money it had transferred out of an account held on
On 22 September 2014 the Section 25 of the Appeal Court of Madrid issued a resolution concluding that the insurance company, which brought a recovery action against a third party after paying the indemnity to its insured, has to prove not only the payment made to the insured party but also the fact that the
This article was first published in Global Reinsurance Magazine on 30 September 2014 and is reproduced in the blog with kind permission of the publishers. The answer lies in the findings of a recent case at the European Court of Justice. The case found that when a company’s head office supplies services from a third
Bluefin Insurance Services Limited (“Bluefin”) recently challenged the Financial Ombudsman Service’s (“FOS”) jurisdiction over a complaint made against it. In order for the FOS to have jurisdiction over a complaint, the person making the complaint (the “Complainant”) must fall within the definition of “eligible complainant” contained within Rule 2.7.1R of the FCA’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints
Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Limited v Novae Corporate Underwriting Limited In a refreshingly short judgment, Field J adopted a robust, common sense approach in granting summary judgment to a cedant and refusing to allow a reinsurer to try to develop arguments that the underlying commercial settlement was reached without all proper and business like steps
In the Spanish jurisdiction how to calculate lawyer´s civil liability has always been a controversial issue. The key question is, if the professional makes a mistake, is the client´s right of defense damaged or is there only an infringement of a contractual relationship with the obligation to pay a compensation for damages?
Unit and Index linked policies are at the centre of a debate as to whether they should be classified as insurance contracts or financial products, respectively governed by different sets of rules. Linked policies concluded after 25 January 2007 – i.e. the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 303 of 29 December 2006 –are
San Evans Maritime Inc & Ors v Aigaion Insurance Co SA In this case the Commercial Court held that the Aigaion, one of the insurers of a ship – the St. Efrem, was required to follow a settlement entered into by a group of Lloyd’s syndicates who were the lead insurers of the vessel under