J Rothschild Assurance Plc v Collyear [QBD (Comm)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Rix J. |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 29 September 1998 |
Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Rix
Insurance - participation of investor in review process of pensions mis-selling - claim thereby made for indemnity insurance purposes
An investor who had participated in the review process of pensions mis-selling set up by Lautro and/or accepted compensation offered under the terms of the review process had made a claim against the pension provider, for the purposes of the pension providers' professional indemnity insurance policy.
Mr Justice Rix so held in a reserved judgment in the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division, allowing in part the plaintiffs' application for declarations in respect of their right to be indemnified by the defendant underwriters and insurance companies under three insurance policies numbered 200492/AA, 200492X1/93 and 200492X2/93, for losses it had or might yet sustain by reason of the need to compensate investors to whom the plaintiffs had mis-sold life assurance and/or pension policies.
His Lordship made declarations that:
1 The plaintiffs' solicitors' letters dated January 27, 1994 were a valid notification under general condition 2 of the policies;
2 The plaintiffs were not deprived by exclusion 2 of the policies of an indemnity in respect of opt-out claims by reason of their knowledge prior to the inception of the policies of the terms of Lautro's Enforcement Bulletin No 16 dated July 15, 1992;
3 The indemnities sought by the plaintiffs against the defendant underwriters were in respect of "any claim or claims … made against them … in respect of any civil liability" within the meaning of insuring clause 1 of the policies, and
4 That, pursuant to insuring clause 4 of the policies, the plaintiffs were entitled to be indemnified in respect of such part of the costs incurred in reviewing and investigating those cases of pension mis-selling in respect of which the underwriters are liable to indemnify the plaintiffs in accordance with insuring clause 1.
His Lordship further declined to make a declaration that on the true construction of insuring clause 5 the first schedule and special memorandum 1 of the policies the appropriate excess to be applied where Rothschild were indemnified by underwriters in relation to claims under the policies arising out of the mis-selling of pensions by appointed representatives, was the relevant excess of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aspen Insurance UK Ltd & 2 Ors v Pectel Ltd
...the extent to which the assured was aware of, and hence capable of notifying, occurrences which may give rise to an indemnity; see Rothschild v Collyear [1999] 1 Lloyd's Reports 6 at p.22 (per Rix J.) and HLB Kidsons v Lloyds Underwriters [2008] 1 Lloyd's Reports IR 237 at paragraphs 72 and......
-
HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyd's Underwriters subscribing to Lloyd's policy No 621/PK1D00101
...the insurers of which the assured became aware during the policy year. The rationale of such policies has been described in J Rothschild Assurance Plc v. Collyear [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep IR 6 at 22 and in Friends Provident Life and Pensions v. Sirius [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep IR 135 at 142. 5 In th......
-
Colette Ann McManus and Others v European Risk Insurance Company hf
...that they have been notified to the underwriters during the period of cover. So significant are these factors that in J. Rothschild Assurance Plc v Collyear [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. I. R. 6, 22 Rix J. expressed the view that a "claims made" policy could hardly work on any other basis." 9 The t......
-
The Cultural Foundation (doing business as American School of Dubai) v Beazley Furlonge Ltd (as managing agent for Syndicate AFB 2623/623 at Lloyd's)
...Zurich Insurance plc v Maccaferri Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1302; [2017] Lloyd's Rep IR 200 § 16. (See also, by way of contrast, J Rothschild Assurance plc v Collyear [1999] Lloyd's Rep IR 6, 22: “ the test of materiality for notice is a weak one — “which may give rise to a claim”, not “which ......
-
Insurance fundamentals for in-house counsel, part 2
...of the insurer. Footnotes 1 See McManus v European Risk Insurance Co [2013] EWCA Civ 1545; J Rothschild Assurance Plc v Collyear [1998] CLC 1697; and HLB Kidsons (a firm) v Lloyd's Underwriters subscribing to Lloyd's Policy No 621/PK1D00101 [2008] EWCA Civ 2 F Hawke "Managing the risk of in......
-
Blanket notifications: useful considerations for insurers
...considered and applied the principles set out in the English decisions of J Rothschild Assurance Plc & Ors v Collyear & Ors [1998] CLC 1697 and HLB Kidsons v Lloyd's Underwriters [2008] EWCA Civ 1206, and held that the insurers were "clearly wrong" in rejecting the blanket notificat......
-
Insurers Not Entitled To Reject Blanket Notification McManus & Others v. European Risk Insurance Co [2013] EWHC 18 (Ch)
...or omission" had been identified "on each individual file", the Court followed the decision in J Rothschild Assurance plc v. Collyear [1998] CLC 1697 and held that it was not necessary for the notification to be as prescriptive as that contended by European The learned judge opined that "pr......