The chain of causation: “one thing led to another”
In the November 2012 issue of the EBrief we reported on the Commercial Court’s decision in Sealion Shipping v Valiant Insurance Company (Toisa Pisces). The Court of Appeal’s judgment has since been handed down and we review its findings on issues of causation.
9/11 attack on the World Trade Center: how many events?
We examine the judgment in Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company v Heraldglen, an unsuccessful appeal against an arbitration Award in which the Tribunal had decided that the losses sustained by the defendants arising out of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were caused by two separate occurrences arising out of separate events for reinsurance purposes.
England and New York – convergence on “follow the settlements”?
In this article we consider the extent to which the English and New York courts now adopt a similar approach to ‘follow settlements’ clauses in light of the New York Court of Appeals’ judgment in USF&G v American Reinsurance Co.
Satellite TV and extended warranties – the meaning of insurance made clear
In this article we consider the implications of the Supreme Court judgment in Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited v FSA, in which the court upheld the FSA’s view that extended warranties for satellite TV equipment are contracts of insurance for regulatory purposes, notwithstanding that there are no financial payments made to the customer.
What’s in a name? The effect of a basis of the contract clause
The Technology and Construction Court’s decision in Genesis Housing Association v Liberty Syndicate Management provides a useful reminder of the consequences of providing inaccurate information in a proposal form. We highlight the potential dangers of ‘basis of the contract clauses’ for prospective insureds.
The price of privileged communications
In R (on the application of Prudential plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court decided to preserve the status quo by holding that common law legal advice privilege does not extend to anyone beyond the members of the legal profession. We analyse the judgment and consider its implications for in-house lawyers.