Whether insurer liable to repay purchasers’ deposits following dissolution of developer/policy interpretation
UK PRA publishes SS9/14:
Reports have estimated that 1,300 UK law firms have been put at risk after Latvian insurer Balva was put into liquidation. Initially Latvian Board of Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) insisted there was no cause for concern as all Balva’s insurance policies would remain effective and be transferred to its replacement underwriter, Berliner. However, when Berliner pulled the pin, declining to cover the Balva policies, panic hit the UK legal market. Berliner's exit was described by one broker as the “biggest hand grenade into [the] bottom end of the market for many years.”
Insurers and insureds do not bear the risk of a contractor becoming insolvent when undertaking insured repair work. The insurer’s only obligation is to pay its appointed contractor and not any subcontractors engaged by that party.
Background
1,300 solicitors firms are facing the prospect of having to find alternative insurance following the decision by the Latvian Financial and Capital Markets Commission to withdraw the operating licences for insurer Balva. According the press release on the FCMC's website, Balva must now launch a winding-up process by appointing a liquidator but all its insurance policies are still effective.
Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (“DSWC”) and Michael Sullivan and Bernard Freeman (trading as ‘Satellite Services’) v Financial Services Authority
Summary
The demise of the ARP after 30 September 2013 and the prospect of new entrants to the solicitors’ professional indemnity market creates the possibility of more incidences of insurer insolvency. We look at the consequences for firms insured by those insurers.
No financial stability requirement for qualifying insurers
A number of interesting cases relating to professional indemnity insurance passed through the courts in 2018, and this article looks at four of them.
Euro Pools plc (in Administration) v RSA [2018] EWHC 46 (Comm)
Kicking the year off was the Euro Pools decision in January 2018.
The insured specialised in the design and installation of swimming pools. The products that were the source of this dispute were the movable swimming pool floors and the vertical booms that enabled division of the pool.
Introduction
The recent decision of Andrew Burrows QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, in Palliser Limited v Fate Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] EWHC 43 (QB), is a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise where one party (here a tenant) relies on another (its landlord) to take out insurance.
The Facts
In 2010, a fire started at the ground floor restaurant owned and operated by a company called Fate Limited (“Fate”). It was not in dispute that the fire was caused by Fate’s negligence.
On 31 October 2018 the Supreme Court issued its Judgment in the appeal of Dooneen Ltd (t/a McGinness Associates) and another (Respondents) v Mond (Appellant) (Scotland) [2018] UKSC 54.
The appeal had been brought by Mr Mond who had sought to overturn the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Dooneen Ltd & Others V Mond [2016] CSIH 59).
Factual background