Better late than never, the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act of 2010 finally came into force in an amended form on 1 August 2016. It applies across the UK, with minor variances between Scotland and England and Wales. The Act updates third party creditors’ rights against insurers under the 1930 Act of the same name, permitting a streamlined and more cost-efficient procedure for creditors’ claims against insurers in circumstances where the insured company/ individual which took out the liability insurance has suffered an insolvency event.

Historic Position

After years of delay, on 1 August 2016, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will be brought into force in the United Kingdom, making it easier for a party with a claim against an insolvent business to bring the claim directly against the insurer of that business.

This briefing is the second in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing on the run-up to it coming into force on 1 August 2016.

Click here if you would like to read the first briefing in the series.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know

Campbell v Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd (in liquidation) and another (2016) UKSC 38 considered whether an employee could successfully bring a civil action against a director of a company in liquidation for having failed to obtain appropriate employers' liability insurance.

C was an apprentice joiner employed by a company who suffered an injury at work whilst working with an electric saw. The company held employers’ liability insurance but it did not respond to C's claim as the policy excluded claims arising from the use of “woodworking machinery” powered by electricity.

Receiverships are becoming a popular tool for creditors to manage distressed real estate and to realize upon their collateral. Lenders are looking at receiverships as a faster and more efficient and cost effective strategy than forcing a debtor into bankruptcy. They offer the lender flexibility as opposed to well established procedures under bankruptcy. The current economy is also resulting in increased use of receiverships to complete unfinished buildings.  

This blog series has been following the continuing flow of large security breaches of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) and how affected providers and insurers have been responding to their discovery. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s North Bronx Healthcare Network (“HHC”) has recently become perhaps the largest marcher in the parade of PHI security breaches with a reported 1,700,000 persons affected.

The New York Court of Appeals decision on April 5, in the Midland Insurance Company liquidation (In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Company1) is an important affirmation of policyholder rights. In this decision, New York’s highest court held that a policyholder is entitled to a claim and policy-specific choice of law analysis in the liquidation process, rejecting the Midland liquidator’s effort to make a blanket application of New York law to Midland’s 38,000 policyholders.

In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.

Liability insurance policies typically exclude coverage for obligations arising out of the insured’s “assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.”  Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court took a narrow view of this exclusion:  in the landmark decision in Ewing Construction Co. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., 420 S.W.3d 30 (Tex.

A liability insurance company has the right to take over the defense of a policyholder and to control all settlement discussions.  What happens if the carrier fails to pursue settlement negotiations with sufficient zeal, knowing full well that it was leaving the insured exposed to liability above policy limits?  You may be at risk in California if your insurer does this to you.