Insurance Law Monthly

Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings plc [2016] EWHC 1119 (QB) involved a contract for the sale of a business. The seller incurred liability to its employees for exposure to asbestos. The insurers, having indemnified the assured for the claims, sought to recover its payments from the purchaser under an indemnity clause. Those straightforward facts raised a variety of issues as to the construction of the sale agreement and of the insurance taken out by the seller. The case was concerned only with preliminary issues: just how they impact on the actual subrogation claims will not be clear until the matter comes to trial, unless of course the answers to the preliminary issues result in a settlement between the parties.

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 permits a person suffering property damage in the course of a riot to claim compensation from the local police authority. The legislation was considered in Yarl's Wood Immigration Ltd v Bedfordshire Police Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 1110, where the Court of Appeal held that it extended to public property being administered by a private organisation (a detention centre).

There is a generally recognised presumption that, in the case of proportional reinsurance, the insurance and the reinsurance are to be construed back to back so as to provide consistency of cover. That presumption is particularly important where the wording of the two contracts is more or less the same and the premium paid by the reinsured matches the premium received by the reinsured.

The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 requires an employer to obtain liability insurance against claims for death and personal injury in respect of employees injured at work. The Act controls the terms that may be included in a policy, and requires an insurer to make payment despite the fact that it would otherwise have the right to refuse to do so by reliance on a restricted term.