Insurance Law Monthly

In AXA Insurance UK Ltd v EUI Ltd (t/a Elephant Insurance) [2020] EWHC 1207 (QB) Foster J considered the meaning of the phrases “social, domestic and pleasure” and “private motor car” for the purposes of the coverage of a motor policy. The judge has confirmed that driving home from work is not a social purpose, and that the test in any one case is that of primary purpose.

UK Acorn Finance Ltd v Markel (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 922 (Comm), a decision of HHJ Pelling QC on non-disclosure, misrepresentation and breach of warranty, was decided under the law as it was before the implementation of the Insurance Act 2015. There are accordingly some elements of the decision that do not hold good. However, the most important aspect of the decision, the effect of an unintentional non-disclosure clause, remains highly significant.

The consecutive earthquakes in New Zealand in 2010 and 2011 have given rise to a mass of important litigation on the measure of indemnity in property cases. One of the key issues has been whether an assured can recover loss separately for each earthquake.

In The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain (The Prestige) (No 4) [2020] EWHC 1920 (Comm) Butcher J considered the operation of the insurance jurisdiction rules in the Brussels Regulation Recast, European Council Regulation 1215/2012/EU in the light of recent guidance given by the Supreme Court. The issue arose in the context of a direct action brought against a P&I Club by the victims of pollution.

Householder liability policies frequently exclude liability for injury to any person ordinarily resident on the premises. Dalton J in Re Murray (Deceased); Crummer v AAI Ltd [2020] QSC 155 considered the meaning of the phrase “anyone who usually lives at the insured address” and concluded that it was the equivalent of “ordinary resident”.