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
Several studies maintain that an increase in the use of the health cover is lately provoking sensible rises of the insurance premiums. The first consequence of this fact is a general discontent of the policy holders and the subsequent launching of the debate on whether these premium rises are lawful or not. The aforementioned premium
In a recent Court of Appeal judgment it was confirmed that complainants who are successful and accept an award under the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) are unable to subsequently bring court proceedings against the same party in relation to the same claim.
Pursuant to Article 23 of EC Regulation no. 44/2001 on jurisdiction, a jurisdiction clause inserted in the contract signed between the manufacturer of a good and the first buyer does not bind the second buyer, except if the latter expressly gave his/her consent to the said jurisdiction clause. In the present case, the French Supreme
A direct action by a claimant against an insurer is admissible only if the insured at stake can still be held liable for the damage for which compensation is sought. In the present case, a court of first instance had exempted the insured from liability and the claimant had not lodged an appeal against this
Departing from previous case law, the French Supreme Court has ruled that a clause according to which an insurer denies coverage for claims resulting from the lack of necessary repairs or maintenance, whether before or after the occurrence of the damage, except in cases of Force Majeure, is valid under Article L. 113-1 of the
The October 24, 2013 decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to affirm approval of a rehabilitation plan for the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp. (the “Ambac Segregated Account”) concluded a year of dramatic shift in the standards for approval of rehabilitation plans, at least in regards to financial guaranty insurers. See Nickel v.
In December last year, the English Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Astrazeneca Insurance Company Limited v (1) XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd and (2) ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd. The appellant insurer appealed against a determination of two preliminary issues in its claim for an indemnity from the respondent reinsurers under a
The English High Court has made an order in the case of the PIP breast implant litigation that under CPR 3.1(2)(m) the defendant is provide a witness statement setting out whether it has insurance adequate to fund its participation in the litigation to the completion of trial and the conclusion of any appeal. The judge’s
In the Court of Appeal in the case of McManus Seddon v European Risk, claimant solicitors applied for a declaration that they had validly notified the defendant professional indemnity insurers of possible claims against them. They had a “claims made” policy covering claims made in the year of policy cover and notified to the insurer