The appellants provided excess layer professional indemnity insurance cover on a claims made basis. Insurers complained that although the insured had become aware of possible sources of claims, he had not given notice to the insurer, and had thereby created a repudiatory breach.
Held: There was no justification for an extension of the concept of repudiatory breach to protect insurers. Compliance with a clause requiring notification of a potential claim was not a condition precedent to a successful claim, and as an inominate term. Even as such it was not open to the defendants to claim that a breach of the clause was a repudiatory breach allowing them to escape liability.
Judges:
Waller, Mance LJJ, Sir William Aldous
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 601, Times 08-Jun-2005
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Friends Provident Life and Pensions Limited v Sirius International Insurance Corporation, Guardian Assurance Plc, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc, The Scottish Lion Insurance Company Limited, Lf Insurance Company Limited QBD 22-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Plc v BAI (Run-Off) Limited CA 11-Feb-2000
Obligations in a Notice of Claims clause should not be treated as conditions precedent to liability but as innominate terms apt only to create a defence to a claim under the policy if the consequences of breach are so serious as to give the insurers . .
Cited – Bankers Insurance Company Limited v South, Gardner QBD 7-Mar-2003
The two defendants had been involved in a jet-ski accident on holiday in Europe. The claimant sought a declaration that it was not liable to indemnify its insured under the holiday insurance under which they travelled. The policy excluded liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225228