J. Rothschild Assurance plc v John Robert Collyear (First Defendant) and others
| Date | 01 January 1999 |
| Pages | 82-89 |
| Published date | 01 January 1999 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025000 |
| Author | J Rix |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 7 Number 1
Indemnity insurance and the pensions
review
J.
Rothschild Assurance plc v John Robert
Collyear (First Defendant) and others
High Court, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court: Rix J
Date of Judgment: 29th September, 1998
Reported at: Times Law Reports, 15th October, 1998
FACTS
The
Plaintiff,
J. Rothschild Assurance plc,
is a life assurance company. This case arose
out of the review of pensions mis-selling
and the Plaintiff sought to be indemnified
by its professional indemnity insurers for
the losses it had or may yet incur as a result
of having to compensate investors pursuant
to the review of pensions mis-selling. The
first Defendant, Mr Collyear, is a represen-
tative Lloyd's Underwriter, as are some of
the other Defendants (the remainder of the
Defendants being insurance companies).
All the Defendants had subscribed to three
'claims made' indemnity insurance policies
which together extended cover of some
£20m, covering the period 1st February,
1993 until 31st January, 1994 and were
identical in all terms material to this action.
Because the Plaintiff was seeking indemnity
in respect of so many different individual
cases of compensation Mr Justice Clarke
had, at an earlier hearing on 10th February,
1998,
ordered a maximum of ten sample
claims to be tried and all other proceedings
stayed. It subsequently transpired that both
parties agreed that neither were in a posi-
tion to have a full trial of the facts of these
cases but they nonetheless proceeded to a
hearing of these sample claims which were
used here in this case as a vehicle to isolate,
argue and resolve certain basic themes and
issues which were common to the claims in
the stayed proceedings.
ACTION
There were five issues upon which the par-
ties sought declarations from the court.
They were notification, non-disclosure,
claims, costs and excess.
Notification
The first issue involved whether or not
there had in fact been any notification to
the Defendants of claims. This was impor-
tant, as the insurance policies were written
on a 'claims made' basis. The policies also
required notification of any circumstances
of which the Plaintiff became aware which
might give rise to subsequent claims. If
such notification were given and a claim
did arise after the policy year had expired
then it was related back to the policy year
and deemed to have been made within it.
Following an independent report by
KPMG Peat Marwick to the (then) Securi-
ties and Investments Board (SIB) as to the
incidence and extent of mis-selling of per-
sonal pensions, LAUTRO (the Life Assur-
ance and Unit Trust Regulatory
Organisation, at the time the relevant
self-
regulating organisation under the Financial
Services Act 1986 with regulatory jurisdic-
tion over the Plaintiff) wrote to the Plain-
tiff and other LAUTRO members
notifying them that the report had revealed
a 'problem which needs to be tackled'
regarding non-compliance with regulatory
requirements applicable to transfers and
Journal of Financial Regulation
and Compliance, Vol. 7, No. 1,
1999, pp. 82-89
© Henry Stewart Publications,
1358-1988
Page 82
To continue reading
Request your trial