Insurance Law Monthly

The decision of McDonald J in the Irish High Court in Brushfield Ltd (t/a The Clarence Hotel) v Arachas Corporate Brokers Ltd and Another [2021] IEHC 263, demonstrates that the generosity of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] Lloyd’s Rep IR 63 far from means that all business interruption claims will succeed. All turns upon the wording of the clauses in question, and the record of policyholder success in the courts since Arch has been relatively poor.

Markel Bermuda Ltd v Caesars Entertainment Inc [2021] EWHC 1931 (Comm) involved a dispute as to whether an insurance contract contained a London arbitration clause. Bryan J was satisfied that the parties had agreed that such a clause would be included but by oversight it had been omitted from the final documentation. The policy was accordingly rectified to reflect what had been agreed.

The Full Federal Court of Australia, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co Australian Branch, trading as Liberty Specialty Markets v Icon Co (NSW) Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 126 has reversed the decision of Lee J in respect of claims under two separate liability policies. The Liberty Policy was a construction cover, the question being whether its run-off provisions applied to losses occurring the one-year maintenance period after practical completion. The QBE Policy covered products liability, the question being whether a building was a “product”.

In Sompo Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc [2021] SGHC 152, Philip Jeyaretnam JC discussed the nature of the subrogation rights conferred upon an insurer who has indemnified the assured. The decision makes it clear that the right of subrogation applies to all sums that are payable to the assured from other sources that go to reduce the insured loss.