Insurance Law Monthly

The effects of a follow the settlements clause in a reinsurance contract are well known. The clause removes the need for the reinsured to prove actual liability at law to the assured. Instead, it suffices that the reinsured has acted in a bona fide..

There is very little authority on the scope of a broker’s duty of care after the insurance contract has been effected by him. The point arose in Great North Eastern Railway Ltd v JLT Corporate Risks Ltd [2006] EWHC 1478 (Comm) but the Court..

Clause 5.1(e) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement 1999 removes the liability of the MIB to indemnify a passenger where that passenger knew or ought to have known that the driver was uninsured. Phillips v..

In Shinedean Ltd v (1) Alldown Demolition (London) Ltd (2) AXA Insurance UK plc [2005] EWHC 2319 (TCC) HHJ Richard Havery QC cast doubt on the efficacy of claims cooperation clauses, the Court holding that a clause which did not impose time limits..

In Insurance Law Monthly (Volume 18: May (pp3–7)) there was detailed discussion of the decision of Cooke J in Talbot Underwriting v Nausch Hogan & Murray, The Jascon 5 [2005] EWHC 2359 (Comm). The outcome was the virtual denial of the..

Diab v Regent Insurance Co Ltd, June 2006, unreported a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from Belize, raised a number of important issues on the effect of the failure of the assured to comply with a condition precedent requiring the provision..