Search terms: Insurance & Reinsurance, United Kingdom
Two UK nationals were involved in a car accident in France. Pursuant to French law, the injured party brought a claim against the other's insurers. The insurers relied on Section 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which provides that if it is more appropriate for issues in the case to be governed by another law, the original law should be displaced. The court ruled against the insurers.
A recent High Court case related to what was - to the parties' knowledge - the first insurance business transfer scheme under Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 involving the transfer of the insurance business from a firm authorised in Gibraltar to a firm authorised in the United Kingdom. Among other things, it raised questions about the fulfilment of the notification requirement.
The Supreme Court has considered a case in which the claimant was injured at work, but was found to have dishonestly and grossly exaggerated his injuries. It was accepted by both parties that the claimant was guilty of serious abuse of process. The issue was whether the court had power to strike out the claim, either before or after trial.
In a recent case an insured discovered that an employee had been stealing stock and sought an indemnity from its insurers. The policy included a section on theft, but one section of the insurer's standard wording - on 'theft by employees' - was not selected by the insured and was not part of the policy issued. Nonetheless, the judge held that there was cover under the theft section of the policy.
In a recent case the insured sought to claim for damage to its fishing vessel as a result of a cyclone. The insurer confirmed that it would not put forward a positive case, but maintained that the insured should be put to "strict proof". It was found that the insured had proved its case, except in relation to a salvage claim that - not having been intermediated through a third party - had received no element of outside scrutiny.
A recent case has reconfirmed that it is impossible for a loss to be caused by both an external fortuitous event and inherent vice. The judge also noted that when faced with two rival theories for a loss and having ruled out one possibility, a court may be "left in doubt, such that even if it rejects the insurer's explanation, it cannot say that the assured's explanation is more probable than any alternative (uninsured) explanation".