EU (Withdrawal) Bill may be passed by UK Parliament. Its purpose is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and, so far as possible, import EU law that would otherwise fall away into UK law

The Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill is expected to have its second reading debate

ENGLAND AND WALES PREVIEW OF 2018 January 2018 LEGAL GUIDE HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS 01 page CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 Brexit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 Competition, Regulation and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . .

In Crowden and Crowden v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd[2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm) the Commercial Court found in favour of the Defendant insurer on the disputed construction of an "insolvency" exclusion in a professional indemnity insurance policy.  The case is a useful reminder of the approach which the English Courts take to the construction of exclusions in insurance contracts.  

1. Background

EU requirement for national insolvency registers to be established in all Member States (Recast Insolvency Regulation 2015 ((EU) 2015/848))

Will Nevin Partner T +44 20 7466 2199 [email protected]

UK TIMELINE

Kevin Pullen Partner T +44 20 7466 2976 [email protected]

2017Q4 (Oct-Dec)

In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC), Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd (Peel Port) applied for pre-action disclosure of the defendant's insurance policy under Civil Procedure Rule 31.16. Peel Port was not able to rely on the provisions in Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 because the defendant was not insolvent. Peel Port argued that it was highly probable that rights against insurers would be transferred to them under the 2010 Act in due course.

In a recent judgment on directors’ liability (Bundesgerichtshof, 18 November 2020, IV ZR 217/19), the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the scope of D&O insurance coverage, holding that company directors are entitled to its protection.

Background

Key Points

• Insurers had no priority rights to collect premiums over the proceeds of a successful action they had insured, as a result of a drafting error.

• The High Court affirmed the general rule that, where a party has contracted for an unsecured right only, the court will not elevate it to a secured status.

The Facts 

German insolvency proceedings expose company directors to high risks of personal liability. Claims brought on the basis of sec. 92(2), 93(3) German Companies Act (Aktiengesetz, AktG) and sec. 64 German Limited Liability Companies Act can have disastrous financial consequences. Damages can be in the millions. Therefore many company directors purchase directors’ and officers’ liability insurances (D&O insurance) to protect their personal assets.

The plaintiffs in the underlying action, Art and Wendy Douglas, owned property in Kingston where there was an oil leak in January of 2008. The defendants, who had supplied the oil, sent an environmental clean-up company to remediate the property after being alerted of the leak. The plaintiffs' insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (the "Insurer"), ultimately indemnified the plaintiffs in full and paid for repairs, remediation, additional living expenses of Mr. Douglas, personal property and related damages totaling more than $800,000.

On April 30th, the FDIC issued a final rule that treats a mutual insurance holding company as an insurance company for purposes of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The new rule clarifies that the liquidation and rehabilitation of a covered financial company that is a mutual insurance holding company will be conducted in the same manner as an insurance company.